guild icon
Mayflower District Court
#tdark99-v-zrihem-et-al
This is the start of #tdark99-v-zrihem-et-al channel.
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-08 02:55 a.m.
CASE INFORMATION**

IN THE MAYFLOWER DISTRICT COURT FOR CLARK COUNTY

---

CV-0013-24 TDark99 v. zrihem, turbanwarfare

Trial Type: Civil

Judge Assigned: Judge AlbertWellesley - Courtroom 101

Complaint Attached: Complaint Link

---

UPCOMING COURT DATES



PAST COURT EVENTS



PARTIES**

```
...
Comments
1
Labels
Civil
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-08 02:57 a.m.
@DauuX I have received your Notice of Appearance. Please make sure you respond here
KezzeraKezzera
@DauuX I have received your Notice of Appearance. Please make sure you respond here
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-08 04:15 a.m.
Hello
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-08 04:39 a.m.
@Kezzera Can you or the clerk summon/add defendants
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-08 04:39 a.m.
add as in add to this channe;
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-08 04:39 a.m.
channel*
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-08 04:50 a.m.
I'll have it sorted when I am available the next day
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-08 04:51 a.m.
I will consider that it was filed on the day this was submitted
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-09 07:59 a.m.
@Kezzera
DauuXDauuX
@Kezzera Can you or the clerk summon/add defendants
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-09 04:17 p.m.
@capsulesalesman
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-09 04:26 p.m.
hi, yes one second
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-09 07:05 p.m.
Summons issued
DauuXDauuX
@capsulesalesman
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-09 07:06 p.m.
he's with the supreme court
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-09 07:06 p.m.
@DauuX Is your client here
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-09 07:07 p.m.
and I've added Mr. Singhski to the case as he's given a NOA, and it seems the state has a vested interest in this case
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-09 07:07 p.m.
I will expect Mr. Singhski to make the appropriate representation and notices on this case's record to confirm that interest
KezzeraKezzera
@DauuX Is your client here
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-10 04:34 a.m.
Yes
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-10 10:25 a.m.
@Typical added
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-10 10:25 a.m.
@singhski I will expect you to confirm the states interest when you're on, thanks
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-10 10:39 a.m.
@Typical try now
Typical
Typical 2024-09-10 10:39 a.m.
Alright, thanks.
KezzeraKezzera
@singhski I will expect you to confirm the states interest when you're on, thanks
singhski
singhski 2024-09-10 11:33 a.m.
Pursuant to 5 M.S.C § 3202.4, we are intervening in this case.
singhski
singhski 2024-09-10 11:35 a.m.
Also, the opposing counsel have already recognised this because they submitted their claim to the DoJ pursuant to 5 M.S.C § 3202.1
singhskisinghski
Also, the opposing counsel have already recognised this because they submitted their claim to the DoJ pursuant to 5 M.S.C § 3202.1
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-10 11:54 a.m.
Well we were required to submit it to you anyway
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-10 11:54 a.m.
That doesn't mean we agree the State has an interest in protecting this type of conduct
DauuXDauuX
That doesn't mean we agree the State has an interest in protecting this type of conduct
singhski
singhski 2024-09-10 12:01 p.m.
That doesn't matter, the State dictates whether it has interest in protecting the conduct of it's employees.
DauuXDauuX
Well we were required to submit it to you anyway
singhski
singhski 2024-09-10 12:03 p.m.
Not for all types of claims
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-10 12:03 p.m.
For this one, we were
singhski
singhski 2024-09-10 12:03 p.m.
Claims specifically against employees of the government must go through the DoJ
singhskisinghski
Claims specifically against employees of the government must go through the DoJ
singhski
singhski 2024-09-10 12:03 p.m.
You have expressed that this is against employees of the government
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-10 12:04 p.m.
So I don't see why you're trying to lecture someone who already knows this
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-10 12:04 p.m.
I know who the suit is against
singhski
singhski 2024-09-10 12:04 p.m.
Ok, so our intervention goes without contest @Kezzera
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-10 12:04 p.m.
Well we still haven't heard what the interest is
singhski
singhski 2024-09-10 12:04 p.m.
You have.
singhski
singhski 2024-09-10 12:06 p.m.
5 M.S.C § 3202.4, the "Solicitor General may intervene with the government as a defendant in cases against one's individual capacity if they were in fact serving in an official capacity"
singhskisinghski
Pursuant to 5 M.S.C § 3202.4, we are intervening in this case.
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-10 01:18 p.m.
Noted
DauuXDauuX
Well we still haven't heard what the interest is
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-10 01:21 p.m.
This is a statutory right. I may ask the state to kindly provide their reasons if it becomes a hotly contested issue - I believe you aren't contesting so I won't likely press on this issue further
KezzeraKezzera
Noted
singhski
singhski 2024-09-10 01:24 p.m.
Count three must also be dismissed
singhski
singhski 2024-09-10 01:24 p.m.
It was not brought to us for arbitration
singhskisinghski
Count three must also be dismissed
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-10 01:25 p.m.
Libel is not an official capacity tort..
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-10 01:26 p.m.
We're not seeking damages against the State
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-10 01:27 p.m.
And if you want to say that Defendant zrihem calling Plaintiff an "inbred specimen" is an official capacity act, well that'd be something
DauuXDauuX
Libel is not an official capacity tort..
singhski
singhski 2024-09-10 01:27 p.m.
The government is still a defendant because they were in fact serving in an official capacity albeit that the claim derived from their individual capacity
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-10 01:27 p.m.
A defendant to some torts, yes, not all
singhski
singhski 2024-09-10 01:27 p.m.
Announcing and writing reasons for discharge all happen in the official capacity
singhski
singhski 2024-09-10 01:28 p.m.
You’re not suing him for calling the Plaintiff an “inbred species”
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-10 01:28 p.m.
I would need such requests in writing Mr Singhski
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-10 01:28 p.m.
I do apologise if it is a burden to
singhski
singhski 2024-09-10 01:28 p.m.
The same standard is applied as this Court has applied in regards to count one
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-10 01:29 p.m.
unless the reasons are like, one or two sentences long
KezzeraKezzera
I would need such requests in writing Mr Singhski
singhski
singhski 2024-09-10 01:29 p.m.
You don’t, the Court must deny a claim that did not go through the DoJ
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-10 01:29 p.m.
Don't be unreasonable
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-10 01:29 p.m.
I'll look at count three, one second
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-10 01:30 p.m.
You're expecting Plaintiff to go to and fro to the DoJ to seek leave to sue for every act that after the arbitration?
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-10 01:30 p.m.
These actions were a result of it
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-10 01:30 p.m.
Not a cause of it
singhski
singhski 2024-09-10 01:30 p.m.
That’s not what you alleged in your complaint
singhski
singhski 2024-09-10 01:30 p.m.
and yea we do
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-10 01:31 p.m.
You're also defending someone who willingly retaliated against my client
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-10 01:31 p.m.
And you know damn well about it
singhski
singhski 2024-09-10 01:31 p.m.
You’re not making any legal arguments here.
singhski
singhski 2024-09-10 01:31 p.m.
Quit speaking to me and talk to the Judge.
singhski
singhski 2024-09-10 01:32 p.m.
Anyways @Kezzera as I said this is a statutory right and does not warrant a formal motion to dismiss.
singhski
singhski 2024-09-10 01:33 p.m.
The statutory language is clear in that each tort alleged is separate and must go through the DOJ and the system it has put in place to arbitrate those claims.
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-10 01:34 p.m.
Well we can just go back to the DOJ and get leave if needs be
singhski
singhski 2024-09-10 01:35 p.m.
Specifically 5 M.S.C § 3203.1
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-10 01:40 p.m.
Is it only just count three that's not gone through arbitration?(edited)
DauuXDauuX
Well we can just go back to the DOJ and get leave if needs be
singhski
singhski 2024-09-10 01:40 p.m.
It should be dismissed with prejudice as a sanction for wasting the Courts time when you were aware of the statutory requirement of arbitration before filing with the Court.
KezzeraKezzera
Is it only just count three that's not gone through arbitration?(edited)
singhski
singhski 2024-09-10 01:41 p.m.
Yes, unless he has changed what they allege
singhski
singhski 2024-09-10 01:41 p.m.
Which I’m going to check
singhskisinghski
It should be dismissed with prejudice as a sanction for wasting the Courts time when you were aware of the statutory requirement of arbitration before filing with the Court.
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-10 01:41 p.m.
Yeah no, that's hardly how it works
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-10 01:41 p.m.
No, he can't change the record - we have the original file as given to us on the date of submission
KezzeraKezzera
No, he can't change the record - we have the original file as given to us on the date of submission
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-10 01:41 p.m.
He means the original complaint that was provided to them
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-10 01:41 p.m.
Ah right
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-10 01:42 p.m.
This one was expanded based on the illegal conduct that happened through and after the arbitration
singhski
singhski 2024-09-10 01:42 p.m.
No your honour, the complaint brought to us for arbitration contrasts with the complaint filed with the Court
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-10 01:42 p.m.
because I do see that you went through the arbitration process - well the plaintiff real did - yes you did allege that mr Dauu
singhskisinghski
No your honour, the complaint brought to us for arbitration contrasts with the complaint filed with the Court
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-10 01:42 p.m.
How far?
KezzeraKezzera
How far?
singhski
singhski 2024-09-10 01:42 p.m.
You can have a look for yourself
KezzeraKezzera
How far?
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-10 01:42 p.m.
It includes everything past the arbitration
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-10 01:43 p.m.
I obviously couldn't have included it prior to it
DauuXDauuX
I obviously couldn't have included it prior to it
singhski
singhski 2024-09-10 01:43 p.m.
You need to arbitrate the claims again if they are different
singhski
singhski 2024-09-10 01:43 p.m.
Essentially your honour, we arbitrated one thing and are now litigating another
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-10 01:43 p.m.
The torts are the same other than libel I think
singhskisinghski
You can have a look for yourself
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-10 01:44 p.m.
I can't seem to access the complaint filed
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-10 01:44 p.m.
The thing that was arbitrated sparked further misconduct and I don't think it was the intent of the statute to force us to go back in an endless loop of arbitrating
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-10 01:44 p.m.
(the one through the DOJ)
KezzeraKezzera
(the one through the DOJ)
singhski
singhski 2024-09-10 01:45 p.m.
That’s weird, I can see it fine.
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-10 01:45 p.m.
Could you post it here
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-10 01:46 p.m.
One second
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-10 01:46 p.m.
I'm gonna do something to fix it on my end
singhski
singhski 2024-09-10 02:43 p.m.
@Kezzera
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-10 04:20 p.m.
What a weird situation, thanks for being patient
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-10 04:20 p.m.
I will look at this now
singhskisinghski
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-10 04:21 p.m.
So this was intended for the court?
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-10 04:21 p.m.
and not for the arbitration?
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-10 04:21 p.m.
And this is what was sent to you after the arbitration process, but the one on file is very different
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-10 04:21 p.m.
is that correct?
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-10 04:21 p.m.
@singhski
KezzeraKezzera
So this was intended for the court?
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-10 04:24 p.m.
this was the original claim submitted for the arbitration, styled in the form of a CC so I wouldn't have to rewrite it if DOJ outright denied
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-10 04:24 p.m.
It saves time to just put it in that format and submit it as is, but the arbitration revealed some more misconduct which is why the current complaint is different
singhskisinghski
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-10 04:25 p.m.
as you can read on this file, it was signed Sept 3rd, arbitration started on the 4th
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-10 04:48 p.m.
ah yeah, silly me
KezzeraKezzera
So this was intended for the court?
singhski
singhski 2024-09-10 04:58 p.m.
This was intended for arbitration, the issue is, what is intended for arbitration---in good faith--- is supposed to be intended for both arbitration and the Court.
singhski
singhski 2024-09-10 04:59 p.m.
You can't just add claims whenever you so please and also change what you are alleging for the other claims
singhski
singhski 2024-09-10 04:59 p.m.
That negates the whole process of arbitration and its intentions
singhski
singhski 2024-09-10 05:00 p.m.
If you want me to go into depth about how it disregards the arbitration process, I'll be happy to do so
singhski
singhski 2024-09-10 05:00 p.m.
Though I believe it is extremely straightforward.
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-10 05:01 p.m.
We didn't just "add claims"
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-10 05:01 p.m.
Those claims didn't exist before the arbitration
DauuXDauuX
Those claims didn't exist before the arbitration
singhski
singhski 2024-09-10 05:02 p.m.
Regardless, they are against an employee of the government and must be arbitrated.
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-10 05:03 p.m.
The Department of Justice has made it abudantly clear that it won't grant all the relief sought, as in their understanding, Plaintiff was not an employee
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-10 05:03 p.m.
And we're unwilling to settle unless all of it is granted
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-10 05:05 p.m.
Even if arbitration on the new counts led to something--the whole arbitration would be irrelevant, as we want Plaintiff reinstated and the DOJ said no
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-10 05:07 p.m.
That's nothing but a denial of the claim
DauuXDauuX
Even if arbitration on the new counts led to something--the whole arbitration would be irrelevant, as we want Plaintiff reinstated and the DOJ said no
singhski
singhski 2024-09-10 05:16 p.m.
Libel specifically needs to be arbitrated
singhskisinghski
Libel specifically needs to be arbitrated
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-10 05:17 p.m.
No, because the DOJ refused to meet our demands
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-10 05:17 p.m.
And DOJ can either accept the claim, deny it or mediate it
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-10 05:17 p.m.
They denied it
DauuXDauuX
No, because the DOJ refused to meet our demands
singhski
singhski 2024-09-10 05:59 p.m.
Thats not how it works :😭:(edited)
singhski
singhski 2024-09-10 05:59 p.m.
“no the DOJ refused our other demands we aren’t going to arbitrate our new ones”
singhski
singhski 2024-09-10 06:00 p.m.
Anyways stop talking to me. Talk to the Judge.
singhski
singhski 2024-09-10 06:01 p.m.
The demands are separate, we denied your demands for the other three counts
singhskisinghski
Thats not how it works :😭:(edited)
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-10 06:05 p.m.
please do not edit messages!
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-10 06:07 p.m.
anyway ya no point discussing anything with you
singhski
singhski 2024-09-10 06:07 p.m.
@DauuX would you rather refile the entire case or dismiss the libel claim with prejudice?
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-10 06:07 p.m.
Not up to you
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-10 06:07 p.m.
And it doesnt satisfy prejudice
DauuXDauuX
anyway ya no point discussing anything with you
singhski
singhski 2024-09-10 06:07 p.m.
Because you can only come up with straw mans
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-10 06:07 p.m.
Shh
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-10 06:07 p.m.
Talk to the judge, not me
DauuXDauuX
And it doesnt satisfy prejudice
singhski
singhski 2024-09-10 06:08 p.m.
Yes it does, wasting the Courts time can result in sanctions.
singhski
singhski 2024-09-10 06:08 p.m.
@Kezzera
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-10 06:49 p.m.
I do not find it likely that because the other 3 claims which were arbitrated on is sufficient grounds for the whole action to proceed (whole includes Libel)(edited)
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-10 06:49 p.m.
I am willing to proceed with the arbitrated claims, it went through the process
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-10 06:49 p.m.
Those that aren't you will need to deal with the DOJ
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-10 06:51 p.m.
If there's a clear demonstration that the DOJ is unwilling to front liability for any of these claims and any future claims thereafter OR i.e. all claims, then I would say that it's fine to proceed on the whole action(edited)
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-10 06:52 p.m.
The contents of your libel claim do include stuff related to the original matter which was for arbitration
KezzeraKezzera
The contents of your libel claim do include stuff related to the original matter which was for arbitration
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-10 06:52 p.m.
intended for*
KezzeraKezzera
Those that aren't you will need to deal with the DOJ
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-10 06:52 p.m.
The DOJ has said that they won't reinstate Plaintiff (which is part of our sought relief originally), which is why they refused to settle in the first place
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-10 06:52 p.m.
I can bring back the whole case with libel, but they won't reinstate Plaintiff anyway
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-10 06:53 p.m.
Problem is I cannot see that, I wish I could
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-10 06:53 p.m.
They've closed the door already on one of the stipulations, and absent one is absent all
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-10 06:53 p.m.
The transcript is absolutely not available for me to access
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-10 06:53 p.m.
Okay one second
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-10 06:53 p.m.
Thank you
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-10 06:53 p.m.
I can make a more concrete resolution with it
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-10 06:53 p.m.
These transcripts are
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-10 06:53 p.m.
wacky
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-10 06:53 p.m.
As long as it has the contents of the arbitration, I can work with it
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-10 06:54 p.m.
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-10 06:55 p.m.
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-10 06:55 p.m.
alternatively maybe this file works...?
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-10 06:55 p.m.
it won't have the profile pictures and images
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-10 06:55 p.m.
Wait, no
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-10 06:56 p.m.
does this work for you
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-10 06:56 p.m.
perfect, thanks
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-10 06:57 p.m.
I guess they work for some time
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-10 06:57 p.m.
no it's just the one on the document takes me to a broken link somehow
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-10 06:57 p.m.
im on a different device at the moment
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-10 06:57 p.m.
Ah
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-10 06:57 p.m.
Well the one on the document was acquired the same way
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-10 07:01 p.m.
yeah, ill blame it on the device
singhski
singhski 2024-09-11 02:13 a.m.
@Kezzera The third claim was not processed through the DOJ. There is not more to it.
singhski
singhski 2024-09-11 02:16 a.m.
The relief for libel does not involve reinstatement
singhski
singhski 2024-09-11 02:17 a.m.
I’m not sure why this needs further elaboration—if it is not dismissed it’s a blatant misapplication of the law
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-11 02:36 a.m.
The whole claim invovles reinstatement. The arbitration is of a claim, not of single, individual causes of action
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-11 02:36 a.m.
And if it has been decided that relief will not be granted, even slightly, then the claim was denied
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-11 02:37 a.m.
The point of statute isn't to force us to waste even more time by submitting a claim that we already know won't be granted
DauuXDauuX
And if it has been decided that relief will not be granted, even slightly, then the claim was denied
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-11 02:42 a.m.
Even slightly meaning in part
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-11 05:41 a.m.
@Kezzera We move for a default judgement pursuant to Mayfl. R. Civ. P. 37
DauuXDauuX
The whole claim invovles reinstatement. The arbitration is of a claim, not of single, individual causes of action
singhski
singhski 2024-09-11 11:19 a.m.
Reinstatement isn't a valid form of relief for negligence.
singhski
singhski 2024-09-11 11:20 a.m.
*libel
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-11 11:21 a.m.
Nobody said it was
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:21 a.m.
hi, sorry
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:21 a.m.
just working on another case let me get back to this
singhskisinghski
The relief for libel does not involve reinstatement
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:22 a.m.
No it doesn't, it'd be an inappropriate relief and I think that's commonly held (unless there's a good reason to somehow consider it, then it may be considered as an equitable issue potentially, although I don't think that's the case)
DauuXDauuX
The whole claim invovles reinstatement. The arbitration is of a claim, not of single, individual causes of action
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:22 a.m.
It does not deter the relief sought however - one claim cannot somehow invalidate the relief overall requested
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:22 a.m.
other grounds do exist, which is to be assessed anyway
KezzeraKezzera
No it doesn't, it'd be an inappropriate relief and I think that's commonly held (unless there's a good reason to somehow consider it, then it may be considered as an equitable issu...
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-11 11:23 a.m.
And nobody is disagreeing with that
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:23 a.m.
I know
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:23 a.m.
I was just responding
KezzeraKezzera
It does not deter the relief sought however - one claim cannot somehow invalidate the relief overall requested
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-11 11:23 a.m.
My point is that the DOJ refused to accept one of the provisions we asked for, and thus the whole claim
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-11 11:24 a.m.
There isn't a separate claim for all the torts and a separate one for libel
DauuXDauuX
@Kezzera We move for a default judgement pursuant to Mayfl. R. Civ. P. 37
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:24 a.m.
37b was it?
KezzeraKezzera
37b was it?
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-11 11:26 a.m.
Yes, 37(b)
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-11 11:26 a.m.
Would you like the default motion in writing?
KezzeraKezzera
No it doesn't, it'd be an inappropriate relief and I think that's commonly held (unless there's a good reason to somehow consider it, then it may be considered as an equitable issu...
singhski
singhski 2024-09-11 11:27 a.m.
Can we have your judgement in regards to the dismissal of count three?
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:27 a.m.
Well yes if the deadline was not met Dauu, I issued it yesterday according to my clock so they're in time
singhskisinghski
Can we have your judgement in regards to the dismissal of count three?
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:27 a.m.
It'd have to be in writing
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:28 a.m.
Or you both have to work out whether to take it to arbitration, and only on count 3
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:28 a.m.
The remainders have already been arbitrated
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:28 a.m.
I can stay the whole action until count 3 is resolved
KezzeraKezzera
It'd have to be in writing
singhski
singhski 2024-09-11 11:28 a.m.
The arbitration statutes mandate count three to be arbitrated
KezzeraKezzera
Well yes if the deadline was not met Dauu, I issued it yesterday according to my clock so they're in time
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-11 11:28 a.m.
The summons says they have until September 11th, 2.40 AM UTC-7
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:28 a.m.
oh fucking crap
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:29 a.m.
did I miscount the time
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-11 11:29 a.m.
Which was about 6 hours ago
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:29 a.m.
hold on, let me double check
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:30 a.m.
yes okay, i thought i fucked up something
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:30 a.m.
sorry my bad
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:30 a.m.
anyway
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:30 a.m.
I mean if that's the case (pretty sure it is), we'd have to hold off action for count three
DauuXDauuX
My point is that the DOJ refused to accept one of the provisions we asked for, and thus the whole claim
singhski
singhski 2024-09-11 11:30 a.m.
That's really not how it works unless your only request for relief was reinstatement.
singhski
singhski 2024-09-11 11:30 a.m.
wHICH IT WASN;T
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:30 a.m.
but the remainders are still actionable here(edited)
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:31 a.m.
Is there anything to suggest that if the remedies sought here were different to the ones in arbitration the whole action has to go back? Pretty sure not
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:32 a.m.
i'm just going to double check..
singhski
singhski 2024-09-11 11:33 a.m.
Yes, there are two more remedies being sought.
singhski
singhski 2024-09-11 11:34 a.m.
Namely "Declaratory judgement stating that Defendant zrihem’s action of blacklisting Plaintiff was
an act of retaliation unsupported by law, which transgressed Plaintiff’s rights;" (¶ 49d)
singhski
singhski 2024-09-11 11:34 a.m.
"A letter of apology written and signed by Defendant zrihem, of no less than 200 words,
published in the Mayflower National Guard’s public announcements channel, wherein
Defendant zrihem will take blame and apologise for his defamatory and unlawful
conduct, which shall not be generated by artificial intelligence; which shall be a genuine
expression of apology. The letter ought not to be deleted, removed, or otherwise
modified;" (¶ 49e)
singhski
singhski 2024-09-11 11:35 a.m.
Arbitration is used to settle a dispute--there are new disputes here.
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:35 a.m.
I'm more comfortable for count three to go back to arbitration on the basis it has, once again, alleged the defendants on qualifying issues for arbitration. However this will have to be timely
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:36 a.m.
What about the remaining claims @singhski
singhski
singhski 2024-09-11 11:36 a.m.
See above
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:36 a.m.
You're asking for the whole thing to be stayed pending arbitration outcome?
singhski
singhski 2024-09-11 11:36 a.m.
The claims themselves aren't being arbitrated, rather the remedies being sought from them
singhski
singhski 2024-09-11 11:36 a.m.
Yes
singhskisinghski
The claims themselves aren't being arbitrated, rather the remedies being sought from them
singhski
singhski 2024-09-11 11:37 a.m.
*Rather the remedies AND the claims simultaneously
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-11 11:37 a.m.
Your Honour
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:37 a.m.
I'm not sure as to whether the remedies discussion qualify for arbitration, the claims that ask for the remedies would be more appropriate(edited)
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:37 a.m.
Yes
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-11 11:37 a.m.
Do we agree that a claim is up for arbitration, and not separate causes of action?
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-11 11:38 a.m.
I.e., you don't arbitrate separate causes but the whole claim which may include more than one cause
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:38 a.m.
The thing is most of your causes of action were dealt with earlier in arbitration
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:38 a.m.
It can be unduly delaying the action if the whole claim were halted for now
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-11 11:38 a.m.
I'd like to make my reasoning clearer for the Court
DauuXDauuX
Do we agree that a claim is up for arbitration, and not separate causes of action?
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-11 11:39 a.m.
Are we in agreement over this though?
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:39 a.m.
I'm still looking(edited)
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:39 a.m.
(I assume you both are in dispute to that still)
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:39 a.m.
(If you aren't then you don't need my input on that)
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-11 11:39 a.m.
@singhski Is a claim arbitrated or are separate causes of action treated individually?
KezzeraKezzera
It can be unduly delaying the action if the whole claim were halted for now
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-11 11:40 a.m.
And I'd say it is undue delay, as throwing out libel doesn't change the fact that defendant did not respond to other causes, meaning default is proper for the rest
singhskisinghski
*Rather the remedies AND the claims simultaneously
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-11 11:41 a.m.
Well this works
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-11 11:41 a.m.
Working from this angle, Your Honour
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-11 11:41 a.m.
A relief we've been requesting since the beginning was Plaintiff's reinstatement, and the DOJ refused to grant this
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-11 11:41 a.m.
Meaning that part of our relief would not be satisfied, meaning that the claim was denied
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-11 11:42 a.m.
And so adding libel doesn't change the fact that the DOJ has already denied the claim on the basis of the sought reinstatement
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-11 11:42 a.m.
It would not change the outcome in the slightest but only waste time and resources
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-11 11:47 a.m.
I don't really see a point in going to the DOJ with the entire complaint (including libel) just to have them deny it by saying there will not be a reinstatement
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:50 a.m.
Are you seeking reinstatement for your client based on your deprivation of rights claim
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:51 a.m.
I'd just like to confirm that first
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-11 11:51 a.m.
Yes, and the unlawful action one
singhski
singhski 2024-09-11 11:51 a.m.
Ok well clearly his issue is with the arbitration process
singhski
singhski 2024-09-11 11:51 a.m.
Nothing we can do about that
singhski
singhski 2024-09-11 11:52 a.m.
@Kezzera Who sent the summons?
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:52 a.m.
No, it's regulated by statute and its specifics are further regulated bythe AG if I'm correct
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:52 a.m.
You didn't get the summons?
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:52 a.m.
I thought you got it
singhski
singhski 2024-09-11 11:52 a.m.
Zrihem and Turban were never summoned.
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:52 a.m.
You said to me to give it to you
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:52 a.m.
I thought you'd take it to them
singhski
singhski 2024-09-11 11:52 a.m.
No, I said to direct any summons to me in the future
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:53 a.m.
...
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:53 a.m.
boy i'm losing my marbles
singhski
singhski 2024-09-11 11:53 a.m.
As in, direct any summons to the SG to me
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:53 a.m.
So zrihem and turban are absolutely unaware
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:53 a.m.
that there's a pending civil case against them
singhski
singhski 2024-09-11 11:53 a.m.
I have just made them aware
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:53 a.m.
I sent it to you directly thinking that's what you meant
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:54 a.m.
that you were going to send it to them
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:54 a.m.
as their counsellors
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-11 11:54 a.m.
Well the government knew and the government intended to protect them
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:54 a.m.
I thought justin had already made the call far in advance
singhski
singhski 2024-09-11 11:54 a.m.
Okay, to clear up the record @Kezzera has count three been remanded (for a lack of a better word) to the DoJ for arbitration?
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:55 a.m.
@DauuX Identify what remedies are tied to the libel, is it the money awards(edited)
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-11 11:55 a.m.
The money awards are for negligence and libel
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-11 11:55 a.m.
And we are well-within the limit for negligence alone
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:56 a.m.
I'm not inclined to proceed with the whole claim being stayed for one cause of action
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:56 a.m.
If I take 5 MSC 1 3203.1 in the most literal sense it may be for the elements of the claim
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:56 a.m.
and not the whole claim
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:57 a.m.
and that's very little discretion for the court afforded there
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:57 a.m.
The libel can go to arbitration
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:57 a.m.
But since the defendants SOMEHOW did not get the summons
KezzeraKezzera
The libel can go to arbitration
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-11 11:57 a.m.
That works for us I suppose
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:57 a.m.
I'm confused as to how we'd like to proceed with the reminaders
singhski
singhski 2024-09-11 11:57 a.m.
Okay, so libel is not being considered by this Court henceforth?
DauuXDauuX
That works for us I suppose
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:58 a.m.
aye
singhski
singhski 2024-09-11 11:58 a.m.
Until arbitrated
singhskisinghski
Okay, so libel is not being considered by this Court henceforth?
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:58 a.m.
Not until the arbitration issue is settled
singhski
singhski 2024-09-11 11:58 a.m.
Pefect, thanks.
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:58 a.m.
I would ask libel is dealt with promptly in arbitration
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:58 a.m.
you still have the remaining actions, we need to settle that
KezzeraKezzera
But since the defendants SOMEHOW did not get the summons
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-11 11:58 a.m.
I'd like to point out that that the government has made it clear it has an interest in this case and these are mostly claims which fall under official capacity
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-11 11:58 a.m.
So the Government has been given notice
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:58 a.m.
Yes so I did send it to Singhski
singhski
singhski 2024-09-11 11:59 a.m.
You sent the summons alone without any instructions
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-11 11:59 a.m.
Well, the official capacity claims are against the State and not individual Defendants
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:59 a.m.
It's in the summons Singhski
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:59 a.m.
What instructions are you talking about
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-11 11:59 a.m.
I really don't see what the issue here is
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:59 a.m.
In there it says, respond in two days, I gave the place, specific deadline
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:59 a.m.
I signed it and everything
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 11:59 a.m.
the reference is there
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 12:00 p.m.
I've attached the complaint
singhski
singhski 2024-09-11 12:01 p.m.
I'm really not sure what your point is
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-11 12:01 p.m.
Just for the record, I've just made an arbitration ticket
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-11 12:01 p.m.
to settle libel
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 12:01 p.m.
I would have to believe that this would go through the appropriate channels regardless, I've given the notice
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 12:01 p.m.
I don't get what your point is either
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-11 12:02 p.m.
I think he's trying to say default shouldn't be granted because he forgot to inform his clients
DauuXDauuX
Just for the record, I've just made an arbitration ticket
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 12:02 p.m.
Thanks for notice
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 12:03 p.m.
Well apparently Singhski is aware only of this now
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 12:03 p.m.
and I don't buy it, you were aware of this case
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 12:03 p.m.
when you asked me earlier about you wanting to be included in this
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 12:03 p.m.
as the government's attorney
singhski
singhski 2024-09-11 12:04 p.m.
The service isn't even proper per Mayflower Rules of Civil Procedure anyways
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 12:04 p.m.
Lack of staff, I'm happy to re-issue it appropriately in the proper form
singhski
singhski 2024-09-11 12:04 p.m.
Since we didn't receive an initial pleading
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 12:04 p.m.
...
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 12:04 p.m.
what?
singhski
singhski 2024-09-11 12:04 p.m.
You didn't furnish a copy of the initial pleading to me whilst summoning
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 12:04 p.m.
Singhski
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 12:04 p.m.
It's in the summons
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 12:05 p.m.
It's two clicks
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 12:05 p.m.
It was in there the whole time
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 12:05 p.m.
You're saying you wanted the whole thing, the whole pdf, just sent to you directly, and because I instead provided the link which took you to it anyway, readily available, that's invalid?
singhskisinghski
The service isn't even proper per Mayflower Rules of Civil Procedure anyways
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-11 12:05 p.m.
And you realise this now only after you failed to submit a response?
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-11 12:05 p.m.
How convenient
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 12:05 p.m.
and not because, I don't know, maybe i directly sent it?
KezzeraKezzera
You're saying you wanted the whole thing, the whole pdf, just sent to you directly, and because I instead provided the link which took you to it anyway, readily available, that's *...
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-11 12:06 p.m.
Should've printed it out and sent through mail I suppose
singhski
singhski 2024-09-11 12:06 p.m.
Not all parties received the summons
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 12:06 p.m.
I'll make myself a fool and double check, if it says 'on paper' then I'll hit my head repeatedly and call myself a dunce as my own fault(edited)
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 12:06 p.m.
One second gentlemen
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 12:07 p.m.
Rule 7d
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 12:08 p.m.
Please, tell me where I went wrong there
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 12:09 p.m.
Rule 7e too, please
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 12:09 p.m.
Like I said, where it was done improperly I'm happy to re-issue it in the appropriate form
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 12:09 p.m.
and you would have an extra two days
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 12:10 p.m.
but I don't see it
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-11 12:10 p.m.
Well I mean the State has failed to respond anyway
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-11 12:10 p.m.
to the official capacity torts (which are inherently against them and not the named individuals)
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 12:10 p.m.
If no proper notice was given then it's on the courts to correct it
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 12:10 p.m.
It's only fair
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 12:10 p.m.
so until I see that issue
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 12:11 p.m.
I will have to believe that it was done in the appropriate form
singhski
singhski 2024-09-11 12:13 p.m.
Bare with me one moment.
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 12:13 p.m.
No worries
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 12:14 p.m.
I would direct attention to Rule 7b of the civil procedure rules
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 12:14 p.m.
for the re-issue
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 12:21 p.m.
well...
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 12:22 p.m.
sigma skibid
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-11 12:32 p.m.
He looks as if he hasn't slept..
singhski
singhski 2024-09-11 12:40 p.m.
@Kezzera @DauuX

The summons was sent to myself at 12am GMT, we have until 12am GMT tomorrow to reply. The time on the summons is completely wrong, it suggests 2:57 AM PST, when in reality the deadline was 4PM PST today.

This is a material issue rather than a minor issue, a material issue because it severely impinges on the Defendant's ability to appear or respond, therefore, we believe it is just that the timer is reset and we receive the 7 days to reply from today. Furthermore, this Court erred again in giving us TWO days instead of SEVEN as required by Mayfl. R. Civ. P. 13(1)(a) the only exception being if a statute prescribes otherwise--no such statute exists. The seven days is for the official capacity claims it is actually FIVE for the individual capacity claims per Mayfl. R. Civ. P (13)(a).

So (1) the Court has given us less than 2 days to reply (per the summons being sent at 4pm PST but the deadline for a reply being 2:57am PST on the 11th) and (2) the Court has given us the incorrect amount of time as prescribed by Mayfl. R. Civ. P.

The Court did not serve the Defendants, and expected the Solicitor General's Office to do so
"the summons continues to function as the sine qua non directing an individual or entity to participate in a civil action" Murphy Brothers, Inc. v. Michetti Pipe Stringing, Inc., 526 U.S. 344 (1999); this highlights the importance of the summons, that it is a document which directs the individual and/or entity to participate in this case, this is further empowered by our own provisions. The Defendants did not receive a summons, and thus were not directed to participate in this case. The duty of delivering this summons is delegated to the Judge or the Clerk as prescribed by Mayfl. R. Civ. P. (7)(a) not the OSG.
(edited)
singhski
singhski 2024-09-11 12:41 p.m.
I have no clue where the 2 days to reply standard comes from
singhskisinghski
@Kezzera @DauuX The summons was sent to myself at 12am GMT, we have until 12am GMT tomorrow to reply. The time on the summons is completely wrong, it ...(edited)
singhski
singhski 2024-09-11 12:44 p.m.
Since we don't have a single response deadline as the FRCP does, we would ask the unified deadline, logically, should be 7 days.
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-11 12:45 p.m.
You were aware that the case was here
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-11 12:46 p.m.
I'd be fine with giving you, say, 3 more days
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-11 12:46 p.m.
Which would give you the required 5
singhski
singhski 2024-09-11 12:46 p.m.
The MRCP requires 7 days to respond to official capacity claims.
singhski
singhski 2024-09-11 12:47 p.m.
Since there are both individual and official capacity claims, the unified deadline has to be 7 days otherwise the deadline to respond to the official capacity claims is not in accordance with the MRCP.
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-11 12:47 p.m.
Well the state has been notified before
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-11 12:47 p.m.
it received its notice
singhskisinghski
@Kezzera @DauuX The summons was sent to myself at 12am GMT, we have until 12am GMT tomorrow to reply. The time on the summons is completely wrong, it ...(edited)
singhski
singhski 2024-09-11 12:49 p.m.
So if you could give us our 7 days as required by the MRCP and in the future refrain from creating your own rules of procedure, that would be greatly appreciated.
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-11 12:53 p.m.
Thank God you noticed it after a motion for default was made :🥱:
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-11 12:54 p.m.
cc @singhski @Kezzera
singhskisinghski
@Kezzera @DauuX The summons was sent to myself at 12am GMT, we have until 12am GMT tomorrow to reply. The time on the summons is completely wrong, it ...(edited)
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 01:16 p.m.
I find these acceptable
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 01:16 p.m.
and correct
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 01:18 p.m.
The court will accept its errors and re-issue a correct summons
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 01:19 p.m.
there is this to note as well, thanks
DauuXDauuX
cc @singhski @Kezzera
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 01:19 p.m.
above*
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 01:19 p.m.
So I'll expect a response on all four points
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 01:21 p.m.
@singhski I will re-issue a summons with the corrected date per the civil rules
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 01:22 p.m.
@DauuX I will then expect the state to respond to all points
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 01:22 p.m.
didn't expect that intervention gg
DauuXDauuX
cc @singhski @Kezzera
singhski
singhski 2024-09-11 01:26 p.m.
Okay, in that case, arbitration has been completed, and we are going to answer to all counts.
singhski
singhski 2024-09-11 01:26 p.m.
Is it 7 days or 5?
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 01:27 p.m.
7 since the summons wholly is invalid, and this qualified in 13a1(edited)
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 01:28 p.m.
Sorry to the plaintiff but that's a mistake on my end
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 01:28 p.m.
If you want to respond earlier please feel free
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-11 01:28 p.m.
When does discovery start by the way
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 01:35 p.m.
I'd wait until their response is in then we can kick the gears
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-11 01:35 p.m.
Is there a compelling reason to ask for it very soon?
KezzeraKezzera
Is there a compelling reason to ask for it very soon?
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-11 01:49 p.m.
I need subpoenas for some things hence the question
DauuXDauuX
I need subpoenas for some things hence the question
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-12 01:01 a.m.
If it's absolutely urgent I'd consult the rules before proceeding
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-12 01:19 a.m.
@Kezzera @singhski My client has informed me that he's dropping reinstatement from the sought relief
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-12 01:20 a.m.
So just giving notice
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-12 01:20 a.m.
He's dropping it because he received another offer
DauuXDauuX
He's dropping it because he received another offer
singhski
singhski 2024-09-12 02:13 a.m.
From who?
singhski
singhski 2024-09-12 02:14 a.m.
Do you mean another department?
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-12 02:30 a.m.
The MNG
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-12 02:32 a.m.
From cluggas
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-12 03:36 a.m.
Thanks for notice and that's interesting
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-12 03:37 a.m.
Just confirming if he's still going ahead with the causes of action (all of them), and if he's looking for different relief or dropping it altogether? @DauuX
KezzeraKezzera
Just confirming if he's still going ahead with the causes of action (all of them), and if he's looking for different relief or dropping it altogether? @DauuX
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-12 03:41 a.m.
My understanding is that we're proceeding with the same causes of action and the same relief, but no reinstatement
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-12 03:41 a.m.
So all the declaratory judgements, punitive damages, apology
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-12 03:43 a.m.
Right
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-12 03:43 a.m.
I'm also aware Zrihem has resigned and would like to discuss any potential implications about that with you both
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-12 03:44 a.m.
perhaps tomorrow...
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-12 03:44 a.m.
I'm sorting out a summons for the defendant so we don't delay this further for you
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-12 03:44 a.m.
Official capacity suits are against the office, not the named agent
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-12 03:44 a.m.
which I would like to reiterate my sincerest apologies
DauuXDauuX
Official capacity suits are against the office, not the named agent
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-12 03:44 a.m.
We'll still have to discuss who will be named
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-12 03:44 a.m.
that was what I wanted to talk about
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-12 03:45 a.m.
(you've put their names on the paper)
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-12 03:45 a.m.
Well I don't think this changes anything
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-12 03:45 a.m.
No, it won't change the case substantially
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-12 03:45 a.m.
unless Singhski disagrees
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-12 03:46 a.m.
He's already said the case is against the State
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-12 03:46 a.m.
Even for libel
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-12 03:46 a.m.
Him changing his mind now would be funny
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-12 03:49 a.m.
I was on about the naming only
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-12 03:49 a.m.
Summons is being sorted, we'll discuss this tomorrow
KezzeraKezzera
We'll still have to discuss who will be named
singhski
singhski 2024-09-12 10:43 a.m.
It doesn't matter
❤️1
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-12 01:20 p.m.
Thanks
UserUser
Message could not be loaded.
singhski
singhski 2024-09-13 10:54 a.m.
Can Zrihem be added here?
zrihem
zrihem 2024-09-13 05:02 p.m.
@Kezzera add Lucas aka mandatory morale here
zrihem
zrihem 2024-09-13 05:02 p.m.
Thank you
zrihem
zrihem 2024-09-13 05:03 p.m.
Or whoever is in such position to do so
zrihem
zrihem 2024-09-13 05:06 p.m.
Also reiterating this in the channel concerning the prevention of one’s rights to the enlistment of the national guard, I have no position of power nor rank to do such as my resign letter serves as proof for sure. TO add on I had no intentions to do such thank you very much.
zrihem
zrihem 2024-09-13 05:06 p.m.
I believe receiving the rank of MAJOR on tdark99’s behalf was more than enough.
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-13 05:06 p.m.
The official capacity torts are against your office, not you
zrihem
zrihem 2024-09-13 05:07 p.m.
I have no Office
zrihem
zrihem 2024-09-13 05:07 p.m.
I’m an individual
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-13 05:07 p.m.
You used to
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-13 05:07 p.m.
And it was sued
zrihem
zrihem 2024-09-13 05:08 p.m.
:🥶:
singhski
singhski 2024-09-13 05:38 p.m.
Reply and motion to dismiss will be submitted momentarily
singhski
singhski 2024-09-13 05:39 p.m.
@DauuX @Kezzera
singhski
singhski 2024-09-13 06:10 p.m.
@Kezzera @DauuX
singhski
singhski 2024-09-13 06:12 p.m.
@chris Also needs to be added
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-13 06:24 p.m.
@singhski
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-13 06:24 p.m.
This was denied
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-13 06:24 p.m.
Are you saying he received hearing/notice (as understood in light of the due process requirements), or that he had no employer, or that he was not dishonourably discharged?
DauuXDauuX
Are you saying he received hearing/notice (as understood in light of the due process requirements), or that he had no employer, or that he was not dishonourably discharged?
singhski
singhski 2024-09-14 03:36 a.m.
That he was not entitled to one
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-14 03:36 a.m.
Hello, going to bed here in a bit
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-14 03:36 a.m.
Will add those in the trello and I will look at it tomorrow
singhskisinghski
That he was not entitled to one
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-14 03:36 a.m.
So there is no contest that one was not provided, just whether he was entitled
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-14 03:37 a.m.
(I'm going to account the conversation happening here in my decision if it is relevant to the pending actions)
DauuXDauuX
So there is no contest that one was not provided, just whether he was entitled
singhski
singhski 2024-09-14 03:37 a.m.
Exactly.
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-14 03:37 a.m.
I will submit a response to the MTD
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-14 03:37 a.m.
And I suppose we could resolve this through summary judgement since we agree on all material facts
DauuXDauuX
I will submit a response to the MTD
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-14 03:38 a.m.
Noted and I will see if that's the case when I read up on this tomorrow
singhski
singhski 2024-09-14 03:38 a.m.
I intend to file a MSJ at pre trial(edited)
singhski
singhski 2024-09-14 03:38 a.m.
In fact I have written it so it seems as though there will be two motions
singhski
singhski 2024-09-14 03:38 a.m.
No problem.
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-14 03:38 a.m.
Please send in filing-center accordingly
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-14 03:38 a.m.
I'm going to closely consult the rules as to the deadlines because I keep fucking that up
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-14 03:39 a.m.
catch me if I make any incorrect statements as to dates, would greatly appreciate the assistance
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-14 03:39 a.m.
Goodnight gentlemen
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-14 03:39 a.m.
We're all learning the rules I guess
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-14 03:41 a.m.
It can be a complete mindfuck since everyone here has varying experiences with procedure
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-14 05:08 p.m.
I disclose that I have engaged in a conversation with Singhski regarding the older summons (which has now been replaced), and the discussions were in relation to the incorrect hour being put on the summons, and a procedural approach for the summons to be corrected. I acknowledged this as a mistake on my end and believe this to be the agreed position.
KezzeraKezzera
I disclose that I have engaged in a conversation with Singhski regarding the older summons (which has now been replaced), and the discussions were in relation to the incorrect hour...
singhski
singhski 2024-09-15 05:01 a.m.
Has @chris been added?
singhski
singhski 2024-09-15 08:43 a.m.
@Kezzera Has discovery begun?
singhskisinghski
Has @chris been added?
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-15 01:02 p.m.
I have added him
KezzeraKezzera
I have added him
singhski
singhski 2024-09-15 01:03 p.m.
Thank you, and read above.
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-15 01:17 p.m.
RAHHHHH IM LOSING MY MARBLES
singhskisinghski
@Kezzera Has discovery begun?
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-15 01:17 p.m.
Per Mayfl. D. Ct. 3(1), pre-trial proceedings begin. The deadline is ten days from the moment summons was issued. Where we are deficient in time as ONCE AGAIN ME BEING COMPLETELY STUPID, please request more time(edited)
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-15 01:17 p.m.
I'd like to thank the defendants for their timely response to the pleadings
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-15 01:18 p.m.
Discovery will begin as of this message going out. If it helps @singhski and @DauuX greatly I will set out an advanced set of deadlines in writing and this shall constitute an order
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-15 01:18 p.m.
(If it isn't, just say so we can be extremely flexible with the time)
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-15 01:19 p.m.
I still have the MTD, and I will await DauuX to submit his response to it along with other filings he intends to submit
singhski
singhski 2024-09-15 01:54 p.m.
Cc: @Kezzera @DauuX
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-15 01:58 p.m.
that was lightning quick my god
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-15 02:02 p.m.
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-15 02:02 p.m.
@singhski Might be a bit of a shock but the Constitution overrules whatever the policy says
DauuXDauuX
@singhski Might be a bit of a shock but the Constitution overrules whatever the policy says
singhski
singhski 2024-09-15 02:12 p.m.
I go into detail about that in my MSJ
singhski
singhski 2024-09-15 02:13 p.m.
Also, a screenshot of the Plaintiff replying will suffice
singhski
singhski 2024-09-15 02:13 p.m.
/answering to the interrogatories
DauuXDauuX
@singhski Might be a bit of a shock but the Constitution overrules whatever the policy says
singhski
singhski 2024-09-15 02:17 p.m.
And no, it actually supports it not "overrules"
singhskisinghski
And no, it actually supports it not "overrules"
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-15 02:18 p.m.
in general
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-15 02:18 p.m.
the Constitution does overrule
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-15 02:18 p.m.
meaning has precedence, superiority, or however else you want to phrase it
DauuXDauuX
the Constitution does overrule
singhski
singhski 2024-09-15 02:18 p.m.
Overrule is to reject something, the Constitution does not reject the right to formal notices/hearings.
singhski
singhski 2024-09-15 02:19 p.m.
The other words are not synonymous to overrule
singhski
singhski 2024-09-15 02:19 p.m.
Whatever.
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-15 02:19 p.m.
"per the Guard's own policies" implies the Guard policy is at liberty here
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-15 02:19 p.m.
which it is not
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-15 02:27 p.m.
@singhski @Kezzera Response to the MTD has been filed
❤️1
DauuXDauuX
@singhski @Kezzera Response to the MTD has been filed
singhski
singhski 2024-09-15 02:28 p.m.
Can you please post it here as a Google Drive PDF?
singhski
singhski 2024-09-15 02:52 p.m.
¶40 isn't in the statement of facts
singhskisinghski
¶40 isn't in the statement of facts
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-15 02:56 p.m.
Youve had a chance to make your point
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-15 03:18 p.m.
@Kezzera Pursuant to Mayfl. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(2), can I get a subpoena format to fill out
singhski
singhski 2024-09-15 03:37 p.m.
@Kezzera When can we expect a ruling?
DauuXDauuX
@Kezzera Pursuant to Mayfl. R. Civ. P. 30(b)(2), can I get a subpoena format to fill out
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-16 12:29 a.m.
Sure, let me see if I can get one cooked
singhskisinghski
@Kezzera When can we expect a ruling?
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-16 12:29 a.m.
Soon now that I've got the responses etc
KezzeraKezzera
Soon now that I've got the responses etc
singhski
singhski 2024-09-16 11:47 a.m.
Thanks. I hope so.
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-16 03:08 p.m.
@Kezzera @singhski Interrogatories on our behalf have been filed as well
❤️1
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-16 03:08 p.m.
courtesy link
DauuXDauuX
@Kezzera @singhski Interrogatories on our behalf have been filed as well
singhski
singhski 2024-09-16 03:15 p.m.
Thanks
DauuXDauuX
chris
chris 2024-09-16 07:05 p.m.
Can I respond to 11
chris
chris 2024-09-16 07:06 p.m.
In like 1 word
chrischris
Can I respond to 11
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-17 12:57 a.m.
As long as it'a true
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-17 12:57 a.m.
It's*
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-17 03:35 a.m.
I'm getting to these soon
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-17 03:36 a.m.
I have a backlog at the moment to deal with
KezzeraKezzera
I'm getting to these soon
singhski
singhski 2024-09-17 12:51 p.m.
Alright
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-17 05:23 p.m.
@DauuX Check your DMs
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-17 05:23 p.m.
done
KezzeraKezzera
@DauuX Check your DMs
singhski
singhski 2024-09-17 05:24 p.m.
Is it related to this case?
singhskisinghski
Is it related to this case?
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-17 05:27 p.m.
its the subpoena format
DauuXDauuX
its the subpoena format
singhski
singhski 2024-09-17 05:29 p.m.
Oh okay np
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-17 05:51 p.m.
I will get someone to serve the MNG
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-17 06:10 p.m.
cluggas was serviced by blaesum
❤️1
singhskisinghski
Is it related to this case?
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-17 06:33 p.m.
yeah the subpoena
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-17 06:33 p.m.
i gave a template potentially with edit so i sent it there, if you need it ill send it too
DauuXDauuX
cluggas was serviced by blaesum
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-17 06:33 p.m.
proof accepted
singhski
singhski 2024-09-19 10:32 a.m.
@Kezzera No rush but, when can we expect a ruling, a lot of the pleadings I intend to submit revolve around this ruling
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-19 10:56 p.m.
getting around to it, will expect to get a decision to you guys in about two days or earlier
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-19 10:56 p.m.
i have fucked up majorly in some issues so rectifying
KezzeraKezzera
getting around to it, will expect to get a decision to you guys in about two days or earlier
singhski
singhski 2024-09-20 02:31 a.m.
We only have 5 days of discovery left
DauuXDauuX
singhski
singhski 2024-09-20 10:47 a.m.
Okay, so, can we have evidence that the Plaintiff answered these questions under oath and in your DMs?
singhski
singhski 2024-09-20 10:47 a.m.
Or that he wrote that document
singhskisinghski
Okay, so, can we have evidence that the Plaintiff answered these questions under oath and in your DMs?
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-20 10:49 a.m.
?
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-20 10:49 a.m.
I don't see a reason for that
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-20 10:49 a.m.
Unless you're assuming I wrote that and signed his name without consent
DauuXDauuX
Unless you're assuming I wrote that and signed his name without consent
singhski
singhski 2024-09-20 11:33 a.m.
I'm not, interrogatories must work differently on ROBLOX
singhski
singhski 2024-09-20 11:33 a.m.
There should be no issue in doing so.
singhskisinghski
I'm not, interrogatories must work differently on ROBLOX
singhski
singhski 2024-09-20 11:34 a.m.
Every answer I have provided in the past has proof.(edited)
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-20 11:35 a.m.
Good for you
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-20 11:35 a.m.
I'm not sure what you're getting at
DauuXDauuX
I'm not sure what you're getting at
singhski
singhski 2024-09-20 11:42 a.m.
There are multiple reasons why unauthentic answers could lead to a mistrial and/or appeals
singhskisinghski
There are multiple reasons why unauthentic answers could lead to a mistrial and/or appeals
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-20 11:43 a.m.
Any reason to believe they are not authentic..?
DauuXDauuX
Any reason to believe they are not authentic..?
singhski
singhski 2024-09-20 11:43 a.m.
You're giving me many
singhskisinghski
You're giving me many
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-20 11:44 a.m.
You've just said you weren't implying I falsified that
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-20 11:45 a.m.
@Typical Can you confirm that the information provided in the document was information you affirmed is true
DauuXDauuX
@Typical Can you confirm that the information provided in the document was information you affirmed is true
singhski
singhski 2024-09-20 11:46 a.m.
Literally just release him answering the questions under oath
singhskisinghski
Literally just release him answering the questions under oath
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-20 11:47 a.m.
I did in the document
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-20 11:47 a.m.
I'm assuming you want to make an outstanding discovery that he did not write the answers, but that I did
singhski
singhski 2024-09-20 11:47 a.m.
Okay, well, you shouldn't object to a request for production?
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-20 11:47 a.m.
Thing is, interrogatories can be answered with advice and guidance of an attorney. And so they were. Every answer was checked by me and Plaintiff
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-20 11:48 a.m.
And as long as he gave a green light, that's the end of everyone's concern
DauuXDauuX
And as long as he gave a green light, that's the end of everyone's concern
singhski
singhski 2024-09-20 11:49 a.m.
Right, but is there any reason to object to a request for production?
singhski
singhski 2024-09-20 11:49 a.m.
He gave the green light, which means, it wasn't fabricated, there should be no issue here.
singhski
singhski 2024-09-20 11:49 a.m.
I don't expect you to treat me differently
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-20 11:50 a.m.
Him saying it wasn't should be enough
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-20 11:50 a.m.
My communication with my client is protected by the attorney-client privilege
DauuXDauuX
Him saying it wasn't should be enough
singhski
singhski 2024-09-20 11:51 a.m.
Okay, and if there was a lie in his answers, he would be liable, right?
singhski
singhski 2024-09-20 11:52 a.m.
Great.
singhskisinghski
Okay, and if there was a lie in his answers, he would be liable, right?
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-20 11:52 a.m.
If perjury occurred, yes
singhski
singhski 2024-09-20 11:57 a.m.
Okay actually perfect, these are great.
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-20 11:59 a.m.
Shows what you were after
DauuXDauuX
@Typical Can you confirm that the information provided in the document was information you affirmed is true
Typical
Typical 2024-09-20 02:30 p.m.
Yes.
TypicalTypical
Yes.
singhski
singhski 2024-09-20 02:31 p.m.
Then waive privilege and send it here
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-20 02:46 p.m.
Nuh uh
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-20 02:46 p.m.
I ask that you stop asking my client to do that
singhski
singhski 2024-09-21 07:04 a.m.
@Kezzera Today?
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-21 07:11 a.m.
Also moving for contempt against cluggas for failure to comply with the subpoena
singhski
singhski 2024-09-21 07:41 a.m.
Respectfully submitted, cc: @DauuX , @Kezzera
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-21 07:42 a.m.
@singhski literally says either of them can answer
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-21 07:42 a.m.
They either can't read or don't know what either means
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-21 07:43 a.m.
@Kezzera I move for a perjury hearing against defendant zrihem
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-21 07:43 a.m.
this implies the blacklist was not issued
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-21 07:43 a.m.
which is contrary to the truth
singhski
singhski 2024-09-21 07:44 a.m.
Which you are yet to provide evidence to
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-21 07:44 a.m.
Oh but I have
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-21 07:44 a.m.
Its in the complaint
DauuXDauuX
@Kezzera I move for a perjury hearing against defendant zrihem
singhski
singhski 2024-09-21 07:47 a.m.
Also, no, you can only move for sanctions
singhskisinghski
Also, no, you can only move for sanctions
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-21 07:48 a.m.
Yes, I worded that badly. I meant a contempt/sanctions hearing as zrihem committed perjury
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-21 07:49 a.m.
Was going to correct it but thought we're all reasonable enough to know that was the intent, alas, seems like we're not
singhski
singhski 2024-09-21 07:49 a.m.
That just didn't make sense
singhski
singhski 2024-09-21 10:32 a.m.
@Kezzera Both parties agree to extend the discovery period by eight (8) days
singhski
singhski 2024-09-22 01:03 p.m.
@Kezzera Hiii
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-22 03:16 p.m.
cc @singhski @Kezzera
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-23 02:51 p.m.
@singhski @DauuX In the interest of time and of recent circumstances that I have been facing, I will look for a judge to take over this case
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-23 02:51 p.m.
who will be more attentive to this matter(edited)
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-23 02:52 p.m.
my lack of response to the issues stated here will be a detriment to both parties who are seeking prompt resolution.
singhskisinghski
@Kezzera Both parties agree to extend the discovery period by eight (8) days
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-23 02:52 p.m.
The discovery period is extended as agreed
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-23 02:52 p.m.
The outstanding MTD remains pending, all current knowledge and material I have gathered will be handed to a new judge once one has come back to me with availability
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-23 02:53 p.m.
This will be an administrative notice
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-23 02:53 p.m.
I will ask the judge to, in the interest of justice, grant any reasonable extensions and waivers so that the case is compliant with the timelines set in the rules(edited)
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-23 02:54 p.m.
No formal order is entered at this moment.
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-23 02:58 p.m.
Alrighty
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-23 03:20 p.m.
I will look forward to have this reassigned as soon as possible, preferably within days
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-23 03:21 p.m.
We have some new nominees who we hope to have confirmed
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-23 03:21 p.m.
as most of you will have taken notice
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-23 09:42 p.m.
I will have judge @acerxtro take over this case
Kezzera
Kezzera 2024-09-23 09:51 p.m.
@acerxtro Complete
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-09-23 10:27 p.m.
Hello.
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-09-24 12:51 a.m.
What a mess this case is.
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-09-24 12:52 a.m.
@DauuX @chris @singhski @Typical Confirm your roles in this courtroom.
acerxtroacerxtro
@DauuX @chris @singhski @Typical Confirm your roles in this courtroom.
singhski
singhski 2024-09-24 02:27 a.m.
Deputy Solicitor General, for Zrihem & Turbanwarfare.
singhski
singhski 2024-09-24 02:27 a.m.
We currently have a pending motion to dismiss, and ruling on objections to interrogatories.
singhski
singhski 2024-09-24 02:28 a.m.
I request that be tended to first.
acerxtroacerxtro
@DauuX @chris @singhski @Typical Confirm your roles in this courtroom.
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-24 04:39 a.m.
TDark99 is the Plaintiff, I'm his counsel
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-24 04:40 a.m.
As Singhski said, there is a motion to dismiss pending judgement, ruling on objections, but also a contempt of court hearing for cluggas for failure to comply with a subpoena and a hearing for zrihem for perjury
acerxtroacerxtro
@DauuX @chris @singhski @Typical Confirm your roles in this courtroom.
chris
chris 2024-09-24 10:14 a.m.
Honestly I've been focusing on school more than this
chris
chris 2024-09-24 10:15 a.m.
and honestly i dont know what the actual fuck is going on
chris
chris 2024-09-24 10:15 a.m.
i don't see a point of this case anymore as TDARK99 is quite frankly a major in national guard and seems to be completely fine
chris
chris 2024-09-24 10:15 a.m.
actually hes OVER me and zriham in the national guard
chris
chris 2024-09-24 10:15 a.m.
He's the only person I've seen on team ever so I don't see the issue
chris
chris 2024-09-24 10:16 a.m.
I really just see this whole court case as (no offense) a real joke as he's asking money as a Major techically
chris
chris 2024-09-24 10:16 a.m.
and me and zriham both really have time to do this nonsense anymore
chris
chris 2024-09-24 10:17 a.m.
im a freshman in college and zriham has a shit ton of irl shit + the head dev for clark
chris
chris 2024-09-24 10:17 a.m.
and you might say it doesnt matter here but majority of us put school and education and life over roblox
chris
chris 2024-09-24 10:17 a.m.
under any circumstance
chris
chris 2024-09-24 10:17 a.m.
it doesnt look like this right now
chris
chris 2024-09-24 10:17 a.m.
i do deeply apologize for my outburst but like this is really dumb
DauuXDauuX
As Singhski said, there is a motion to dismiss pending judgement, ruling on objections, but also a contempt of court hearing for cluggas for failure to comply with a subpoena and a...
chris
chris 2024-09-24 10:18 a.m.
adding to this cluggas does not give 2 shits about that contempt charge
chris
chris 2024-09-24 10:18 a.m.
hes gonna leave and get pardoned by lame probably just go be back as mg
chrischris
hes gonna leave and get pardoned by lame probably just go be back as mg
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-24 10:20 a.m.
Unless he gets impeached
Typical
Typical 2024-09-24 03:54 p.m.
(Man has just mixed real life with lego roleplay!!!!!)
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-09-24 04:41 p.m.
Ok. Allow me some time to read up on this case.
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-09-26 12:42 a.m.
Ok
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-09-26 12:42 a.m.
What point are we in this trial? Still in the pretrial period, yes? @singhski @DauuX
acerxtroacerxtro
What point are we in this trial? Still in the pretrial period, yes? @singhski @DauuX
singhski
singhski 2024-09-26 02:05 a.m.
Yes
singhski
singhski 2024-09-26 02:05 a.m.
As I mentioned, we have ruling on objections, and a motion to dismiss
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-09-26 08:08 a.m.
Ok I’ll check the MTD first
acerxtroacerxtro
Ok I’ll check the MTD first
singhski
singhski 2024-09-26 10:42 a.m.
Perfect
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-26 03:21 p.m.
@chris Do you have access to the old database
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-26 03:22 p.m.
and the NDA form
singhskisinghski
As I mentioned, we have ruling on objections, and a motion to dismiss
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-09-26 06:21 p.m.
Is this the motion in question, the one from the 15th?(edited)
acerxtroacerxtro
Is this the motion in question, the one from the 15th?(edited)
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-26 06:28 p.m.
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-26 06:29 p.m.
Our response was submitted on the 15th (16th on my screenshot cus Im European)
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-09-26 06:39 p.m.
Okay.
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-09-26 06:41 p.m.
I’ve looked through the motion, its response, and the civil complaint.
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-09-26 06:41 p.m.
I too see a problem with the tort of libel: there is no explanation or discussion of actual damages caused by the alleged libel of the defendant.
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-09-26 06:42 p.m.
Sure, the defendant could put out tons of articles saying the plaintiff is terrible, but there has to actually be harm caused in order to fulfill the requirements for libel. There are just simply no damages.
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-09-26 06:44 p.m.
If there are damages, and the defendant is the proximate cause of them, then that should be included in the complaint.
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-09-26 06:44 p.m.
@DauuX
acerxtroacerxtro
If there are damages, and the defendant is the proximate cause of them, then that should be included in the complaint.
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-26 06:45 p.m.
Well there is a direct and pleaded injury from him being a security risk
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-26 06:45 p.m.
He was put on the MNG's blacklist
DauuXDauuX
He was put on the MNG's blacklist
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-09-26 06:46 p.m.
That’s more of a claim against unjust administrative action, I’d think, than libel.(edited)
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-26 06:46 p.m.
I do understand the concern
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-26 06:47 p.m.
But the harm is that hes seen as a security risk and ridiculed for killing the trooper
DauuXDauuX
He was put on the MNG's blacklist
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-09-26 06:48 p.m.
It's also the defendant's act, not damage resulting from an act of the defendant.
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-09-26 06:48 p.m.
The defendants words need to lead to them suffering harm.
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-26 06:48 p.m.
I know
DauuXDauuX
I do understand the concern
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-26 06:48 p.m.
Hence this
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-09-26 06:49 p.m.
This would only be fulfilling the act element, not the harm one.
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-26 06:49 p.m.
Well I don't disagree with you
DauuXDauuX
But the harm is that hes seen as a security risk and ridiculed for killing the trooper
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-09-26 06:49 p.m.
By who? How does this harm the defendant? Is he unable to get jobs due to this? How does he know his reputation is damaged?
acerxtroacerxtro
By who? How does this harm the defendant? Is he unable to get jobs due to this? How does he know his reputation is damaged?
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-26 06:50 p.m.
Ridiculed by both turban and zrihem, I'd say him being classified as a security risk damages his reputation
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-09-26 06:51 p.m.
Can you prove that
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-26 06:51 p.m.
Which part
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-09-26 06:51 p.m.
The harm to his reputation
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-26 06:51 p.m.
How do you want me to do it?
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-09-26 06:51 p.m.
That's what I'm asking you
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-26 06:51 p.m.
That he has less respect points now or what?
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-26 06:51 p.m.
You can't prove damage to reputation
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-09-26 06:52 p.m.
Well, if I put out a memo saying Sheriff Tricky is a terrible sheriff and he backstage people, then he is denied from other jobs he applies to, that is harm that can be linked back to me right there.
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-26 06:52 p.m.
Not really
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-09-26 06:52 p.m.
The reason Tricky would be denied a job unjustly is due to me.
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-26 06:52 p.m.
He might be denied for other reasons
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-26 06:53 p.m.
Besides defendant tried to cover it up and lied
DauuXDauuX
You can't prove damage to reputation
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-09-26 06:53 p.m.
This is especially prevalent with businesses. If McDonalds runs ads on how Burger King has mold in their stores and the public believes it, and their sales drop..
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-26 06:54 p.m.
That count might have been a stretch
acerxtroacerxtro
This is especially prevalent with businesses. If McDonalds runs ads on how Burger King has mold in their stores and the public believes it, and their sales drop..
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-26 06:54 p.m.
Yeah we might leave irrelevant examples out of this
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-26 06:54 p.m.
The two scenarios arent similar
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-09-26 06:55 p.m.
Well, the examples are relevant since nothing exists in the civil complaint to substantiate the tort of libel
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-26 06:55 p.m.
Burger King hardly is
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-26 06:55 p.m.
Neither party is a company
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-09-26 06:55 p.m.
Its the concept that matters, not the entity
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-26 06:55 p.m.
The concept differs too
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-09-26 06:56 p.m.
The civil complaint must either be amended before midnight to be acceptable, or the count of libel will be dismissed.
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-09-26 06:56 p.m.
:Gavel:
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-26 06:56 p.m.
Dismiss it then
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-26 06:56 p.m.
Cus it's 1 am for me and I'm not working on it
DauuXDauuX
Cus it's 1 am for me and I'm not working on it
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-09-26 06:56 p.m.
Are you able to get it in within 24h?
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-26 06:57 p.m.
No because, again, it might have been a stretch
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-26 06:57 p.m.
Proving the damage would be difficult
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-09-26 06:57 p.m.
I agree
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-09-26 06:57 p.m.
Okay
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-09-26 06:57 p.m.
Count will be dismissed then
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-09-26 06:57 p.m.
I'll write an official ruling at a later date
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-26 06:57 p.m.
I'm fine with an oral ruling
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-26 06:58 p.m.
Next item is
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-09-26 06:58 p.m.
I'll take a look at the objections to the interrogatories next
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-26 06:58 p.m.
Yeah
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-26 06:58 p.m.
We submitted second ones with specified names in case thats sustained
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-26 06:58 p.m.
And then the hearing for zrihem
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-09-26 06:59 p.m.
Where were the objections raised?
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-26 06:59 p.m.
In def.'s answers
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-09-26 07:18 p.m.
No objections in the plaintiff's answers.(edited)
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-09-26 07:20 p.m.
These objections don't need rulings.
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-09-26 07:21 p.m.
@DauuX Please amend the interrogatories to specify which defendant each question is directed to.
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-26 07:21 p.m.
Already amended
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-26 07:22 p.m.
But the document literally says either of them can
DauuXDauuX
@chris Do you have access to the old database
chris
chris 2024-09-26 08:36 p.m.
nda yes database idk
singhski
singhski 2024-09-27 02:22 a.m.
@acerxtro Thank you your honour
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-27 05:26 a.m.
@singhski Just a reminder that the interrogatories are due today
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-27 05:27 a.m.
In 10ish hours
DauuXDauuX
@singhski Just a reminder that the interrogatories are due today
singhski
singhski 2024-09-27 10:47 a.m.
Yes, thank you.
singhski
singhski 2024-09-27 02:46 p.m.
Cc: @acerxtro , @DauuX
singhskisinghski
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-27 02:48 p.m.
How do neither zrihem and turbanwarfare know the answer to something they both were aware of?
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-27 02:48 p.m.
They handled the form, they discharged people for it, but they don't know about it?
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-27 02:50 p.m.
Besides, to the questions requiring separate responses, who wrote the ones there....?
DauuXDauuX
How do neither zrihem and turbanwarfare know the answer to something they both were aware of?
singhski
singhski 2024-09-27 03:07 p.m.
The form precedes both of their careers(edited)
singhski
singhski 2024-09-27 03:08 p.m.
There are responses from July 2019 to now
singhskisinghski
The form precedes both of their careers(edited)
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-27 03:16 p.m.
Yeah that'd make sense if there were more responses than people in the group
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-27 03:17 p.m.
But the other way suggests that they either neglected it or something else happened
DauuXDauuX
Yeah that'd make sense if there were more responses than people in the group
singhski
singhski 2024-09-27 03:34 p.m.
There is
singhski
singhski 2024-09-27 03:36 p.m.
There are over 300 responses on that form
singhskisinghski
There are over 300 responses on that form
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-27 03:42 p.m.
??
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-27 03:42 p.m.
Are you out of your mind
DauuXDauuX
Are you out of your mind
singhski
singhski 2024-09-27 03:43 p.m.
No.
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-27 03:44 p.m.
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-27 03:44 p.m.
Let the record reflect that you've just lied..
singhski
singhski 2024-09-27 03:45 p.m.
The responses are from a set period of time
singhski
singhski 2024-09-27 03:45 p.m.
Overall there are over 300 responses on that form
singhski
singhski 2024-09-27 03:45 p.m.
iirc
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-27 03:46 p.m.
That's not how it works
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-27 03:46 p.m.
Besides there's one form with the date being submitted as 3rd July 2019
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-27 03:46 p.m.
And that's the date one manually puts in, not the date of submission either
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-27 03:47 p.m.
Which we would've got had the government complied with our subpoena
singhski
singhski 2024-09-27 03:47 p.m.
Ah, you're right, thanks.
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-27 03:47 p.m.
Yeah so I'm not sure how the 300 got to you
Typical
Typical 2024-09-27 06:02 p.m.
hmm
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-09-27 09:44 p.m.
Ok cool interrogatories have ended
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-09-27 09:44 p.m.
Are we good to move onto discovery? @DauuX @singhski
singhski
singhski 2024-09-28 09:11 a.m.
Cc: @acerxtro @DauuX
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-28 09:14 a.m.
no way you're mixing up facts in the factual background :😭:
DauuXDauuX
no way you're mixing up facts in the factual background :😭:
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-09-28 10:21 a.m.
I don't think summary judgement is the right option for this reason
acerxtroacerxtro
I don't think summary judgement is the right option for this reason
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-28 10:22 a.m.
I'll stick to their response to the complaint
acerxtroacerxtro
I don't think summary judgement is the right option for this reason
singhski
singhski 2024-09-28 11:12 a.m.
It is, the Plaintiff simply repetitively asserting that they were employed doesn’t make it true
singhski
singhski 2024-09-28 11:12 a.m.
an MTD isn’t appropriate because we can’t refute facts of the complaint
singhski
singhski 2024-09-28 11:12 a.m.
in an MTD
Typical
Typical 2024-09-28 11:13 a.m.
Insane, so my discharge reason has changed again
TypicalTypical
Insane, so my discharge reason has changed again
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-28 11:14 a.m.
Apparently
Typical
Typical 2024-09-28 11:14 a.m.
First it was because I didn't get authorization
Typical
Typical 2024-09-28 11:14 a.m.
Then because i didn't sign an NDA
Typical
Typical 2024-09-28 11:14 a.m.
Then insubordination
Typical
Typical 2024-09-28 11:14 a.m.
Now
Typical
Typical 2024-09-28 11:14 a.m.
Was the insubordination punished?
Typical
Typical 2024-09-28 11:14 a.m.
No?
Typical
Typical 2024-09-28 11:14 a.m.
Was it pursued?
Typical
Typical 2024-09-28 11:14 a.m.
No?
Typical
Typical 2024-09-28 11:14 a.m.
Insane
singhski
singhski 2024-09-28 11:15 a.m.
You can’t argue an implied contract if there is evidence you weren’t adhering to it which suggests the lack of mutual assent
singhski
singhski 2024-09-28 11:15 a.m.
You made that much clear in your interrogatories, that you had no clue as to what you were agreeing to
singhskisinghski
You can’t argue an implied contract if there is evidence you weren’t adhering to it which suggests the lack of mutual assent
Typical
Typical 2024-09-28 11:15 a.m.
Wait wait wait
Typical
Typical 2024-09-28 11:15 a.m.
Let me get this straight
Typical
Typical 2024-09-28 11:15 a.m.
Where exactly
Typical
Typical 2024-09-28 11:15 a.m.
Does general order 8 State
Typical
Typical 2024-09-28 11:16 a.m.
that an NDA has to be signed?
Typical
Typical 2024-09-28 11:16 a.m.
@singhski
singhski
singhski 2024-09-28 11:16 a.m.
I’m paraphrasing but it requires it to be signed in order to maintain employment
Typical
Typical 2024-09-28 11:16 a.m.
Well don't paraphrase
Typical
Typical 2024-09-28 11:16 a.m.
Show
singhski
singhski 2024-09-28 11:16 a.m.
It’s at the start
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-28 11:16 a.m.
Is it
Typical
Typical 2024-09-28 11:16 a.m.
Typical
Typical 2024-09-28 11:16 a.m.
Insane
singhski
singhski 2024-09-28 11:17 a.m.
Did you consent and affirm to the following?
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-28 11:17 a.m.
He was willingly maintaining employment
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-28 11:17 a.m.
I suppose.
Typical
Typical 2024-09-28 11:17 a.m.
Which would mean
Typical
Typical 2024-09-28 11:17 a.m.
I automatically
Typical
Typical 2024-09-28 11:17 a.m.
Agree
Typical
Typical 2024-09-28 11:17 a.m.
to the NDA.
singhski
singhski 2024-09-28 11:17 a.m.
You still have to read something to agree to it; mutual assent.
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-28 11:17 a.m.
God you're lost
Typical
Typical 2024-09-28 11:18 a.m.
I read through the Defense policy
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-28 11:18 a.m.
How many times have you read the terms of service for something
singhski
singhski 2024-09-28 11:18 a.m.
Put it in your reply
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-28 11:18 a.m.
Oh I will
Typical
Typical 2024-09-28 11:18 a.m.
Replies replies
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-28 11:18 a.m.
I'm just not sure how to untangle it
Typical
Typical 2024-09-28 11:18 a.m.
Making bullshit up
Typical
Typical 2024-09-28 11:18 a.m.
Answer the question
Typical
Typical 2024-09-28 11:18 a.m.
Where does it state
Typical
Typical 2024-09-28 11:18 a.m.
That you have to sign an NDA
singhski
singhski 2024-09-28 11:18 a.m.
Put it in your reply I’m not responding to your questions
TypicalTypical
I read through the Defense policy
singhski
singhski 2024-09-28 11:20 a.m.
And you didn’t see the NDA?
Typical
Typical 2024-09-28 11:20 a.m.
Alright, so it would be considered perjury correct? You're stating that General order states that you need to sign an NDA, it does in-fact never mention having to sign an NDA.
singhskisinghski
And you didn’t see the NDA?
Typical
Typical 2024-09-28 11:20 a.m.
I did?
singhski
singhski 2024-09-28 11:20 a.m.
Which is listed in the defense policy trello?
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-28 11:20 a.m.
Alrighty gentlemen!
singhski
singhski 2024-09-28 11:20 a.m.
Okay interesting, so you saw it, but didn’t ask for it
singhskisinghski
Okay interesting, so you saw it, but didn’t ask for it
Typical
Typical 2024-09-28 11:20 a.m.
I have to repeat myself again
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-28 11:20 a.m.
Let's not just
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-28 11:21 a.m.
I'll file a formal reply to the motion, this seems to be somewhat a trial to settle the facts
Typical
Typical 2024-09-28 11:21 a.m.
never does it state you have to go on a google forum or any forum to sign the NDA, the moment you are employed and still want to be employed you automatically agree to follow the terms
singhski
singhski 2024-09-28 11:21 a.m.
Please do, all you’ve really said is that you had no interest in signing an NDA. Also that statement contradicts your assertions at arbitration.
Typical
Typical 2024-09-28 11:22 a.m.
Dragging out this case won't make us stop pursuing charges.
TypicalTypical
I read through the Defense policy
singhski
singhski 2024-09-28 11:34 a.m.
¶ 13 of Defendant's interrogatories directed to you, the Plaintiff reads as follows; "Before being offered “employment” in the Guard, did you read the Mayflower National Guard’s defense policy?", your answer was (utilizing the same format as the interrogatories) "No.".(edited)
singhski
singhski 2024-09-28 11:36 a.m.
@acerxtro We will have an OSC in for contempt.
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-28 11:39 a.m.
Ummmm!
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-28 11:39 a.m.
Fun.
singhski
singhski 2024-09-28 11:42 a.m.
Anyway, furthermore, the point being made in the MSJ is flatly laid out. “Property interests, of course, are not created by the Constitution. Rather, they are created and their dimensions are defined by existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source such as state law -- rules or understandings that secure certain benefits and that support claims of entitlement to those benefits.” Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972). There is no state law defining property interests. There are however rules in place created by the MNG in their department policies. It is also the understanding of the MNG that the NDA is required for an individual to maintain their employment. If someone hasn't actually read the terms of their employment as reflected by ¶ 13 of Pl's ans to Defendants interrogatories, there can't possibly be a physical or implied contract.
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-28 11:42 a.m.
You've had your chance to make a motion
singhski
singhski 2024-09-28 11:42 a.m.
It's all in there.
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-28 11:42 a.m.
Didn't say it wasn't
singhskisinghski
@acerxtro We will have an OSC in for contempt.
singhski
singhski 2024-09-28 11:43 a.m.
Anyway this will be referred to the DOJ's criminal division.
singhskisinghski
¶ 13 of Defendant's interrogatories directed to you, the Plaintiff reads as follows; "Before being offered “employment” in the Guard, did you read the Mayflower National Guard’s de...(edited)
singhski
singhski 2024-09-28 12:08 p.m.
He hasn't read it, (thus he didn't mutually assent to the policies of the Guard, and wasn't employed)
singhskisinghski
¶ 13 of Defendant's interrogatories directed to you, the Plaintiff reads as follows; "Before being offered “employment” in the Guard, did you read the Mayflower National Guard’s de...(edited)
Typical
Typical 2024-09-28 12:14 p.m.
Indeed, i was employed then immediately sent Defense Policy, so I did read the defense policy
TypicalTypical
Indeed, i was employed then immediately sent Defense Policy, so I did read the defense policy
singhski
singhski 2024-09-28 12:14 p.m.
Stop perjuring yourself.
Typical
Typical 2024-09-28 12:15 p.m.
singhski
singhski 2024-09-28 12:15 p.m.
You should probably consult @DauuX before sending messages here.
TypicalTypical
Click to see attachment.
Typical
Typical 2024-09-28 12:17 p.m.
So it is true that I didn't read the defense policy before my employment, I read it directly after.
singhski
singhski 2024-09-28 12:17 p.m.
So you read the MNG's policies after you were employed?
singhski
singhski 2024-09-28 12:17 p.m.
Yes or no
Typical
Typical 2024-09-28 12:19 p.m.
Strange? I answered already, has I already stated in my questionnaire I did not read the Defense Policy before I was employed.
TypicalTypical
Strange? I answered already, has I already stated in my questionnaire I did not read the Defense Policy before I was employed.
singhski
singhski 2024-09-28 12:19 p.m.
Okay, great, you didn't sign any sort of employment contract in that case. Not an implied one, not a literal one.(edited)
singhskisinghski
Okay, great, you didn't sign any sort of employment contract in that case. Not an implied one, not a literal one.(edited)
Typical
Typical 2024-09-28 12:20 p.m.
Neither did other guardsmen at the time
TypicalTypical
Neither did other guardsmen at the time
singhski
singhski 2024-09-28 12:20 p.m.
This is about you. Not other guardsmen.
singhski
singhski 2024-09-28 12:21 p.m.
I'm still yet to see an instance of that
singhskisinghski
Okay, great, you didn't sign any sort of employment contract in that case. Not an implied one, not a literal one.(edited)
Typical
Typical 2024-09-28 12:21 p.m.
Funnyily enough
Typical
Typical 2024-09-28 12:21 p.m.
An employment contract doesnt exist.
Typical
Typical 2024-09-28 12:21 p.m.
For MNG
Typical
Typical 2024-09-28 12:22 p.m.
Furthermore
singhskisinghski
This is about you. Not other guardsmen.
Typical
Typical 2024-09-28 12:22 p.m.
This
Typical
Typical 2024-09-28 12:22 p.m.
its about "me"
singhski
singhski 2024-09-28 12:23 p.m.
"All members of the National Guard who do seek employment, shall contact their employer in regards of signing a Google Form as part of this agreement.". Soooo you read the defense policy and didn't reach out to Etsuzo to send the "Google Form"?
singhskisinghski
"All members of the National Guard who do seek employment, shall contact their employer in regards of signing a Google Form as part of this agreement.". Soooo you read the defense ...
Typical
Typical 2024-09-28 12:23 p.m.
?
singhski
singhski 2024-09-28 12:23 p.m.
GO#8
Typical
Typical 2024-09-28 12:23 p.m.
They changed it
singhski
singhski 2024-09-28 12:23 p.m.
Ah.
singhski
singhski 2024-09-28 12:25 p.m.
All we require is an understanding though. If the established practice was that the NDA needs to be signed in order to maintain employment, and you didn't sign it, you don't have a property interest.
singhski
singhski 2024-09-28 12:26 p.m.
Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972)
singhskisinghski
All we require is an understanding though. If the established practice was that the NDA needs to be signed in order to maintain employment, and you didn't sign it, you don't have...
Typical
Typical 2024-09-28 12:26 p.m.
Intresting
Typical
Typical 2024-09-28 12:28 p.m.
This "established practice" was not brought up to any recruitment personnel or High command
singhski
singhski 2024-09-28 12:28 p.m.
?
Typical
Typical 2024-09-28 12:30 p.m.
Maybe you can help since I'm struggling to find this person
Typical
Typical 2024-09-28 12:30 p.m.
Who is 3yx?
Typical
Typical 2024-09-28 12:31 p.m.
@singhski
Typical
Typical 2024-09-28 12:33 p.m.
But it doesn't really matter now does it
Typical
Typical 2024-09-28 12:33 p.m.
Since my discharge reaso
Typical
Typical 2024-09-28 12:34 p.m.
reason*
Typical
Typical 2024-09-28 12:34 p.m.
and reason for removal
Typical
Typical 2024-09-28 12:34 p.m.
Has been changed multiple times
Typical
Typical 2024-09-28 12:35 p.m.
TypicalTypical
Click to see attachment.
Typical
Typical 2024-09-28 12:35 p.m.
It has already been proven that I was recruited into MNG before the announcemnet but due to human error I wasn't let in the group.
Typical
Typical 2024-09-28 12:35 p.m.
Bringing some bullshit about the NDA
Typical
Typical 2024-09-28 12:35 p.m.
Which never was
Typical
Typical 2024-09-28 12:36 p.m.
The reason for my removal
Typical
Typical 2024-09-28 12:36 p.m.
I can even bring up the times I asked
Typical
Typical 2024-09-28 12:36 p.m.
Turban
Typical
Typical 2024-09-28 12:36 p.m.
For the first time
Typical
Typical 2024-09-28 12:36 p.m.
Why i was removed
Typical
Typical 2024-09-28 12:36 p.m.
Turban was also never even allowed to authorize discharge
Typical
Typical 2024-09-28 12:37 p.m.
So quite frankly bringing in the NDA argument or employment argument
Typical
Typical 2024-09-28 12:37 p.m.
Into an argument about the fact that i was recruited before zrihems deadline
Typical
Typical 2024-09-28 12:37 p.m.
Makes no sense
Typical
Typical 2024-09-28 12:39 p.m.
The NDA in no way shape or form finalized your "employment", ~25% of the then current Clark County MNG did not sign the form for Clark County NDA
TypicalTypical
Bringing some bullshit about the NDA
singhski
singhski 2024-09-28 12:42 p.m.
Sure. But your complaint relies on having a property interest. You do not have a property interest.
singhskisinghski
Sure. But your complaint relies on having a property interest. You do not have a property interest.
Typical
Typical 2024-09-28 12:44 p.m.
Elaborate on what property interest is.
TypicalTypical
Elaborate on what property interest is.
singhski
singhski 2024-09-28 12:44 p.m.
No.
singhski
singhski 2024-09-28 12:45 p.m.
I'm not going to entertain this bickering any more, please file your response in accordance with the Rules of the Court.
Typical
Typical 2024-09-28 12:45 p.m.
Also this? Insubordination was never my reason for removal.
Typical
Typical 2024-09-28 12:46 p.m.
Nor did random take any actions against me for it.
Typical
Typical 2024-09-28 12:47 p.m.
Infact
Typical
Typical 2024-09-28 12:47 p.m.
It has never
Typical
Typical 2024-09-28 12:47 p.m.
before been mentioned that this was why I was removed
Typical
Typical 2024-09-28 12:48 p.m.
It's insane right?
You go from my removal is because I was recruited before the deadline, to I didn't sign the NDA, to now insubordination.
Typical
Typical 2024-09-28 12:48 p.m.
You keep contradicting yourself
Typical
Typical 2024-09-28 12:48 p.m.
With every new document you put out
Typical
Typical 2024-09-28 12:50 p.m.
You're unable to logically reason why you're changing the reason for my removal every single time?
All you're doing is bringing new things in that never related to the original reason for removal?
singhskisinghski
I'm not going to entertain this bickering any more, please file your response in accordance with the Rules of the Court.
singhski
singhski 2024-09-28 12:50 p.m.
^
TypicalTypical
Also this? Insubordination was never my reason for removal.
Typical
Typical 2024-09-28 12:50 p.m.
Your responses aren't even coherent, as I've already said.
Typical
Typical 2024-09-28 12:51 p.m.
Contradictions on top of contradictions.
Typical
Typical 2024-09-28 12:55 p.m.
A little while ago you were using a new version of a document after the incident occurred to prove your point.
This incoherent nonsense that you keep pumping out to protect your clients is only to delay the case, in hopes that we drop the case.
As I've already stated before.
We wont drop the case.
(edited)
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-09-28 03:23 p.m.
Shut up @Typical @singhski
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-09-28 03:24 p.m.
Stop bickering in my chambers
singhskisinghski
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-09-28 03:25 p.m.
Discovery is not open and I don’t think these are filed in accordance with the rules of the court.
acerxtroacerxtro
Discovery is not open and I don’t think these are filed in accordance with the rules of the court.
singhski
singhski 2024-09-28 03:27 p.m.
Discovery started 13 days ago
singhskisinghski
Discovery started 13 days ago
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-09-28 03:32 p.m.
Did the previous judge open it
acerxtroacerxtro
Did the previous judge open it
singhski
singhski 2024-09-28 03:33 p.m.
Yes, I am not sure as to how your honour believes interrogatories were being filed.
singhski
singhski 2024-09-28 03:33 p.m.
Nonetheless here is the message
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-09-28 03:33 p.m.
Interesting
KezzeraKezzera
Per Mayfl. D. Ct. 3(1), pre-trial proceedings begin. The deadline is ten days from the moment summons was issued. Where we are deficient in time as ONCE AGAIN ME BEING COMPLETELY S...(edited)
singhski
singhski 2024-09-28 03:33 p.m.
.
singhski
singhski 2024-09-28 03:34 p.m.
We requested an extension which ended today
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-09-28 03:34 p.m.
Ok
singhskisinghski
We requested an extension which ended today
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-28 03:45 p.m.
Tomorrow
singhskisinghski
@Kezzera Both parties agree to extend the discovery period by eight (8) days
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-28 03:46 p.m.
E
DauuXDauuX
Tomorrow
singhski
singhski 2024-09-28 04:40 p.m.
Then we renew our motion for tomorrow
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-28 05:38 p.m.
cc @singhski
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-28 05:38 p.m.
not pinging acer cus thats just the evidence
singhskisinghski
Then we renew our motion for tomorrow
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-09-29 02:50 a.m.
Discovery extended by 8d
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-09-29 02:50 a.m.
if this is too long, you can close it at any time.
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-29 06:29 a.m.
I mean I think we're done with discovery? @singhski
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-29 06:29 a.m.
Both parties have submitted their discoveries
DauuXDauuX
I mean I think we're done with discovery? @singhski
singhski
singhski 2024-09-29 06:30 a.m.
Yes
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-29 05:09 p.m.
cc @singhski @acerxtro
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-29 05:09 p.m.
the response has our msj as well
DauuX
DauuX 2024-09-29 05:10 p.m.
to save time and effort it redirects you to the argument in the response
singhski
singhski 2024-09-29 05:11 p.m.
Thanks!
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-01 05:00 p.m.
Im beginning to think some attorneys are either manifestly incompetent or very misleading
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-01 05:00 p.m.
And Im not sure which one is worse
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-02 05:01 p.m.
I will take a look soon
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-03 08:21 p.m.
@DauuX @singhski I am not granting summary judgement in this case primarily due to there being obvious disagreements of material facts(edited)
acerxtroacerxtro
@DauuX @singhski I am not granting summary judgement in this case primarily due to there being obvious disagreements of material facts(edited)
singhski
singhski 2024-10-04 02:33 a.m.
Such as?
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-04 03:19 a.m.
I'm sorry what
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-04 03:19 a.m.
Just stick to the complaint and the response
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-04 03:20 a.m.
There is (almost) no disagreement at all, let alone over material facts
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-04 03:20 a.m.
The employment status of plaintiff is disputed and that's a question of law
singhski
singhski 2024-10-04 12:04 p.m.
@acerxtro ^
TypicalTypical
So it is true that I didn't read the defense policy before my employment, I read it directly after.
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-04 03:22 p.m.
And this is all about law, not fact?
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-04 03:22 p.m.
@singhski @DauuX
acerxtroacerxtro
And this is all about law, not fact?
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-04 03:39 p.m.
I don't see the relevance
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-04 03:40 p.m.
This isn't a material fact
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-04 03:40 p.m.
Or, to be honest, a fact disputed
singhski
singhski 2024-10-04 03:46 p.m.
@DauuX @acerxtro I think a hearing is in order here
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-04 03:53 p.m.
Ok cool.
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-04 03:53 p.m.
I will grant summary judgment.
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-04 03:53 p.m.
I'll begin writing this weekend.
acerxtroacerxtro
I will grant summary judgment.
singhski
singhski 2024-10-04 03:56 p.m.
In favor of?
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-04 03:57 p.m.
That will be decided this weekend.
acerxtroacerxtro
That will be decided this weekend.
singhski
singhski 2024-10-04 04:00 p.m.
Okay.
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-05 11:59 a.m.
If any facts need to be cleared up let us know please
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-05 11:59 a.m.
The case is somewhat complicated
singhski
singhski 2024-10-06 10:31 a.m.
@acerxtro ^
DauuXDauuX
If any facts need to be cleared up let us know please
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-06 04:29 p.m.
@DauuX @singhski Can both of you make a hearing today?
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-06 04:29 p.m.
Well its 1030 pm here
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-06 04:29 p.m.
So as long as we do it soon, sure
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-06 04:29 p.m.
@singhski
acerxtroacerxtro
@singhski
singhski
singhski 2024-10-06 04:30 p.m.
How long do you expect it to take?
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-06 04:31 p.m.
but if its about the facts, then this is our account
singhskisinghski
How long do you expect it to take?
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-06 04:31 p.m.
1h at most
singhski
singhski 2024-10-06 04:32 p.m.
Okay, but I don’t know the map very well
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-06 04:32 p.m.
(neither)
singhski
singhski 2024-10-06 04:32 p.m.
So locating the courtroom will be a problem
DauuXDauuX
(neither)
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-06 04:32 p.m.
(neither)
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-06 04:32 p.m.
Mersea it is..
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-06 04:33 p.m.
give me 10
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-06 04:33 p.m.
I need to finish one thingy
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-06 04:33 p.m.
Join and go there
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-06 04:33 p.m.
I will be 10m too
acerxtroacerxtro
Join and go there
singhski
singhski 2024-10-06 04:37 p.m.
Which court?
singhskisinghski
Which court?
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-06 04:42 p.m.
The tiny Mersea one
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-06 04:42 p.m.
near the Mersea bank
acerxtroacerxtro
The tiny Mersea one
singhski
singhski 2024-10-06 04:42 p.m.
I'm there
singhski
singhski 2024-10-06 04:42 p.m.
actually wait idk
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-06 04:43 p.m.
@singhski i see u
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-06 04:43 p.m.
its there
singhski
singhski 2024-10-06 04:45 p.m.
@acerxtro We are here
DauuXDauuX
but if its about the facts, then this is our account
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-06 04:51 p.m.
e
singhski
singhski 2024-10-06 05:09 p.m.
"elements of a contract include an offer, acceptance, contractual capacity, consideration (the
bargained for legal benefit and/or detriment), a manifestation of mutual assent "
singhski
singhski 2024-10-06 05:09 p.m.
@acerxtro
singhski
singhski 2024-10-06 05:09 p.m.
Kostelnik v. Helper, 96 Ohio St. 3d 1 - Ohio: Supreme Court 2002
singhski
singhski 2024-10-06 05:26 p.m.
@acerxtro
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-06 05:27 p.m.
Public employees may have a constitutionally protected property interest in their employment. Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 542, 546 (1985); Andrew v. Clark, 561 F.3d 261, 269 (4th Cir. 2009).
acerxtroacerxtro
Public employees may have a constitutionally protected property interest in their employment. Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 542, 546 (1985); Andrew v. Clark, ...
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-06 05:47 p.m.
"A public employee's interest in continued employment may constitute a property interest." Sweitzer v. Dean, 118 Idaho 568, 798 P.2d 27, 30 (Idaho 1990) (citing Simmons v. Board of Trustees, Inc., 102 Idaho 552, 633 P.2d 1130, 1132 (1980)); see also Sue Skaskiw & Vt. Volunteer Servs. for Animals Humane Soc'y v. Vt. Agency of Agric., 730 A.2d 601, 605 (Vt. 1999) (citing Brennan v. Town of Colchester, 169 Vt. 175, 179, 730 A.2d 601, 605 (1999)). ("We have recognized a protected property interest in the right to government employment.")
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-06 05:53 p.m.
just wanted to point out that the government is alleging that plaintiff broke policy by disobeying a direct order while also simultaneously alleging that plaintiff was not an employee
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-06 05:53 p.m.
how could he have disobeyed an order from a superior if he werent an employee..?
acerxtroacerxtro
"A public employee's interest in continued employment may constitute a property interest." Sweitzer v. Dean, 118 Idaho 568, 798 P.2d 27, 30 (Idaho 1990) (citing *Simmons v. Board...
singhski
singhski 2024-10-07 02:38 a.m.
Thanks for telling me what a property interest is.
singhski
singhski 2024-10-07 02:39 a.m.
"There is no constitutionally protected property interest [...] beyond what is expressly stated in the employment contract." Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972).
singhski
singhski 2024-10-07 02:45 a.m.
"they are created and their dimensions are defined by existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source such as state law "
singhski
singhski 2024-10-07 02:46 a.m.
No promise of continued employment was made, that promise has to derive from sources such as state law or contracts
singhski
singhski 2024-10-07 02:49 a.m.
A mere expectation of "continued employment" is fruitless unless defined or promise by contract or state law
singhskisinghski
No promise of continued employment was made, that promise has to derive from sources such as state law or contracts
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-07 03:44 a.m.
Ur so silly
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-07 03:45 a.m.
That promise of continued employment is IN THE DEFENSE POLICY
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-07 03:45 a.m.
An employer's policy can be part of a contract
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-07 03:45 a.m.
This is literally what my motion was all about
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-07 03:46 a.m.
The policy says you won't be fired unless you commit X, Y or Z
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-07 03:46 a.m.
Thats literally a promise of continued employment absent sufficient cause
DauuXDauuX
That promise of continued employment is IN THE DEFENSE POLICY
singhski
singhski 2024-10-07 12:36 p.m.
The DP itself isn't a contract
singhski
singhski 2024-10-07 12:36 p.m.
Unless preceding it was a verbal, implied contract
singhski
singhski 2024-10-07 12:37 p.m.
Anyway since mutual assent is decided on a state by state basis it is the discretion of the Judge to dictate what is required for a contract to be legally binding
singhski
singhski 2024-10-07 12:38 p.m.
The DP is not by any means a contract, its just the policy of the Guard. Reading it doesn't make you an employee.
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-07 12:38 p.m.
What are you even on about
singhski
singhski 2024-10-07 12:38 p.m.
The only "contract" here is the "implied contract" you claim between Etsuzo and Tdark, which the Judge has unfounded
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-07 12:38 p.m.
Thats not true at all..?
DauuXDauuX
That promise of continued employment is IN THE DEFENSE POLICY
singhski
singhski 2024-10-07 12:38 p.m.
.
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-07 12:39 p.m.
The judge couldnt understand your problem
singhskisinghski
"There is no constitutionally protected property interest [...] beyond what is expressly stated in the employment contract." Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. ...
singhski
singhski 2024-10-07 12:39 p.m.
.
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-07 12:39 p.m.
You were literally saying such nonsense that he had you swear :😭:
singhski
singhski 2024-10-07 12:39 p.m.
If continued employment is to be construed as constitutionally protected property interest, its guarantee must derive from the employment contract
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-07 12:39 p.m.
yes and an employers policy can be considered part of the contract
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-07 12:40 p.m.
And it has to be in the context of mayflower
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-07 12:40 p.m.
Unless the MNG drafts proper contracts which I somehow doubt
singhski
singhski 2024-10-07 12:40 p.m.
No, the defense policy is not at all part of the contract, yes, it defines what the contract is, but reading it doesn't make you an employee.
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-07 12:40 p.m.
:💀:
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-07 12:40 p.m.
No one is saying that reading it makes you an employee
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-07 12:41 p.m.
honestly
DauuXDauuX
That promise of continued employment is IN THE DEFENSE POLICY
singhski
singhski 2024-10-07 12:41 p.m.
That doesn't constitute a promise of continued employment since it is "beyond what is expressly stated in the employment contract".
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-07 12:41 p.m.
So what is in the employment contract
singhski
singhski 2024-10-07 12:41 p.m.
The policy IS. NOT. THE. CONTRACT.
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-07 12:41 p.m.
Whats the text of the NDA form
singhski
singhski 2024-10-07 12:41 p.m.
The google form was the contract
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-07 12:42 p.m.
Yeah and I want its text
singhski
singhski 2024-10-07 12:42 p.m.
if Etsuzo was smart enough he would have provided it
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-07 12:42 p.m.
Oh I forgot the government didnt provide it
singhski
singhski 2024-10-07 12:42 p.m.
as he was supposed to
DauuXDauuX
Oh I forgot the government didnt provide it
singhski
singhski 2024-10-07 12:42 p.m.
Either way the "contract" they had doesn't make any promises of continued employment
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-07 12:42 p.m.
The NDA form doesnt contain anything close to a full contract :😐:
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-07 12:42 p.m.
Oh but it does!
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-07 12:42 p.m.
Ok honestly Im not wasting my time
singhski
singhski 2024-10-07 12:42 p.m.
LOL
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-07 12:42 p.m.
You just say the same stuff
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-07 12:42 p.m.
Toodles and have a good day
singhski
singhski 2024-10-07 12:42 p.m.
"It does" "nvm it doesnt gotta retract"
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-07 12:43 p.m.
It does
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-07 12:43 p.m.
You just dont know what continued employment is
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-07 12:43 p.m.
u think it needs specifically to say "continued employment"
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-07 12:43 p.m.
just like a contract needs to have the word "contract"
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-07 12:43 p.m.
thats ur level of legal analysis
singhski
singhski 2024-10-07 12:44 p.m.
singhski
singhski 2024-10-07 12:44 p.m.
"Oh but it does!"
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-07 12:44 p.m.
Yeah the defense policy does
singhski
singhski 2024-10-07 12:44 p.m.
Yes sur
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-07 12:44 p.m.
and its part of the contract
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-07 12:44 p.m.
:🤓:
singhski
singhski 2024-10-07 12:44 p.m.
Yes sur
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-07 12:44 p.m.
peak doj moment
singhskisinghski
"elements of a contract include an offer, acceptance, contractual capacity, consideration (the bargained for legal benefit and/or detriment), a manifestation of mutual assent "
singhski
singhski 2024-10-07 12:44 p.m.
Anyway the Court has already employed this standard
singhski
singhski 2024-10-07 12:45 p.m.
and discussed manifestation of mutual assent be it you disagree with it
singhski
singhski 2024-10-07 12:45 p.m.
Which is not present
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-07 12:45 p.m.
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-07 12:45 p.m.
The Court has also said this..
DauuXDauuX
Click to see attachment.
singhski
singhski 2024-10-07 12:45 p.m.
Which contract?
singhski
singhski 2024-10-07 12:45 p.m.
what was the contract you haven't made that much clear
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-07 12:45 p.m.
Were you not there
singhski
singhski 2024-10-07 12:45 p.m.
Literally just say it
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-07 12:46 p.m.
Toodles!
singhski
singhski 2024-10-07 12:46 p.m.
I don't care enough for your sanctimonious crap talk
singhski
singhski 2024-10-07 12:46 p.m.
What was the contract?
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-07 12:46 p.m.
@acerxtro Please do consider the MSJs because doing trial will make me die
singhskisinghski
What was the contract?
singhski
singhski 2024-10-07 12:46 p.m.
@acerxtro
DauuXDauuX
The Court has also said this..
singhski
singhski 2024-10-07 12:48 p.m.
Bearing in mind this is the same Court which tried to open discovery like a week after it was opened because it thought interrogatories were separate to the discovery process(edited)
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-07 04:12 p.m.
Shut up with this tomfoolery @singhski @DauuX
acerxtroacerxtro
Shut up with this tomfoolery @singhski @DauuX
singhski
singhski 2024-10-07 04:54 p.m.
Is your honor ruling on any of the motions?
singhski
singhski 2024-10-08 09:53 a.m.
@acerxtro
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-08 12:38 p.m.
It has been 24 hours
acerxtroacerxtro
Shut up with this tomfoolery @singhski @DauuX
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-08 12:40 p.m.
Of course :😁:
acerxtroacerxtro
It has been 24 hours
singhski
singhski 2024-10-08 01:16 p.m.
Since?
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-09 03:45 p.m.
A ruling on the motions for SJ will be entered possibly tomorrow.
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-09 03:45 p.m.
I am confident on my decision, but I’d like to have all of it in writing first.
singhski
singhski 2024-10-09 04:14 p.m.
Thanks.
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-09 05:41 p.m.
Very well
singhski
singhski 2024-10-11 02:15 a.m.
@acerxtro :/
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-11 08:59 a.m.
Today.
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-11 09:37 a.m.
Sure!
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-12 12:57 a.m.
@acerxtro ?
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-12 12:58 a.m.
I am currently writing.
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-12 01:12 a.m.
@DauuX @singhski Is it not contested that the Plaintiff was not given due process in regards to their status within the MNG?(edited)
acerxtroacerxtro
@DauuX @singhski Is it not contested that the Plaintiff was not given due process in regards to their status within the MNG?(edited)
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-12 02:37 a.m.
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-12 02:37 a.m.
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-12 03:04 a.m.
Ok
singhski
singhski 2024-10-12 09:11 a.m.
@acerxtro Today?
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-12 02:03 p.m.
the amount of unnecessary citations in these motions makes ruling upon them (and even reading) very difficult
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-12 02:07 p.m.
There arent that many
DauuXDauuX
There arent that many
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-12 02:11 p.m.
everything highlighted is you speaking
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-12 02:11 p.m.
everything else is a citation or a quote
acerxtroacerxtro
everything highlighted is you speaking
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-12 02:21 p.m.
Well it's a response
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-12 02:22 p.m.
And this is a technical matter
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-12 02:23 p.m.
"It is not necessary to" cite everything. Fischer v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. 37 App. Div. 575 (N.Y. App. Div. 1899)(edited)
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-12 02:31 p.m.
I maintain it's not that bad
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-12 02:31 p.m.
There are pages that don't really cite anything
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-12 02:32 p.m.
But I do agree the summary could have lesd
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-12 02:32 p.m.
Less*
acerxtroacerxtro
the amount of unnecessary citations in these motions makes ruling upon them (and even reading) very difficult
singhski
singhski 2024-10-12 02:39 p.m.
I hope my pleadings aren’t bothering you too much
singhskisinghski
I hope my pleadings aren’t bothering you too much
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-12 02:57 p.m.
Meanwhile the hearing
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-12 02:57 p.m.
:😭:
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-12 04:38 p.m.
@singhski @DauuX There is no genuine dispute of fact here
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-12 04:38 p.m.
but I am struggling to find which side is entitled to judgment as a matter of law
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-12 04:39 p.m.
because these arguments are very complex and intricate and there is no obvious, clear, or outlined winner
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-12 04:39 p.m.
I believe both of us will appeal anyway
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-12 04:39 p.m.
That is the issue
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-12 04:39 p.m.
Is there anything that needs clarifying?
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-12 04:40 p.m.
We're aware this is a delicate and complex matter
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-12 04:41 p.m.
I believe that this is a case that can definitely benefit from trial
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-12 04:42 p.m.
Summary judgment is primarily rooted upon the principal that "A movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law if evidence no reasonable jury could rule against the movant based on the facts," and this part is just not there
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-12 04:43 p.m.
So there are some facts that need to be settled
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-12 04:43 p.m.
Would you be able to give us a brief overview so that we talk them over in trial(edited)
acerxtroacerxtro
because these arguments are very complex and intricate and there is no obvious, clear, or outlined winner
singhski
singhski 2024-10-12 04:59 p.m.
Which is why this case is bound for review by the 8 justices
singhski
singhski 2024-10-12 04:59 p.m.
Going to trial won’t resolve said complex issues
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-12 05:00 p.m.
It will allow you to argue significantly better than you can in motions
singhskisinghski
Which is why this case is bound for review by the 8 justices
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-12 05:01 p.m.
Instead of rushing to summary judgment, it is much more logical to present a more elaborative and detailed case to the initial trial court
acerxtroacerxtro
It will allow you to argue significantly better than you can in motions
singhski
singhski 2024-10-12 05:01 p.m.
No, we have argued to the extent we can argue. There has been over 2 weeks of back and forth which won’t be elaborated any better within the time constraints of a trial
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-12 05:01 p.m.
rather than rushing the trial court and praying on a reversal from the supreme court(edited)
singhski
singhski 2024-10-12 05:01 p.m.
Rushing? You were meant to rule on this a week ago.
singhski
singhski 2024-10-12 05:02 p.m.
As you have said, there is no genuine dispute of fact which can be addressed at trial
singhski
singhski 2024-10-12 05:02 p.m.
Trial is redundant
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-12 05:05 p.m.
There is clearly not an obvious winner to this case
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-12 05:05 p.m.
one of the main reasons summary judgment exists is to conclude a case where a jury could not plausibly rule another way
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-12 05:07 p.m.
Cases should not go to trial if he outcome is clear, which would allow the court to decide such cases as a matter of law without wasting judicial resources on a trial.
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-12 05:07 p.m.
The outcome is not clear.
acerxtroacerxtro
one of the main reasons summary judgment exists is to conclude a case where a jury could not plausibly rule another way
singhski
singhski 2024-10-12 05:09 p.m.
The MAIN reason for summary judgement is when there is no genuine disputes of material fact which you have accepted.
singhski
singhski 2024-10-12 05:10 p.m.
To not grant SJ is a travesty especially after that proposition.
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-12 05:11 p.m.
"The court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Mayfl. R. Civ. 38(a).
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-12 05:11 p.m.
Neither of you are entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
singhski
singhski 2024-10-12 05:11 p.m.
Well why not?
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-12 05:12 p.m.
Do you really think there is only 1 clear, plausible outcome to this case
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-12 05:12 p.m.
to a reasonable person
singhski
singhski 2024-10-12 05:12 p.m.
Yes
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-12 05:12 p.m.
The reasonable person does not agree with you.
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-12 05:13 p.m.
Written ruling soon.
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-12 05:13 p.m.
Until then, we will continue from where we left off.
singhski
singhski 2024-10-12 05:13 p.m.
If there is property interest, there is no deprivation of rights, if there is, then there is deprivation of rights.
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-12 05:13 p.m.
Argue it in trial.
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-12 05:13 p.m.
I will not overturn my previous ruling.
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-12 05:14 p.m.
I believe we left off on discovery @singhski @DauuX
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-12 05:14 p.m.
Discovery has closed.
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-12 05:14 p.m.
Do we have any further pretrial motions?
acerxtroacerxtro
Argue it in trial.
singhski
singhski 2024-10-12 05:15 p.m.
Those are not trialable issues,(edited)
acerxtroacerxtro
Do we have any further pretrial motions?
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-12 05:15 p.m.
@singhski @DauuX
singhski
singhski 2024-10-12 05:15 p.m.
Yes, motion to reconsider once you have ruled.
singhski
singhski 2024-10-12 05:27 p.m.
@acerxtro can you reconsider without it being in writing? Both sides argue they are entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law (whether he had a property interest to protect) both which deem a trial redundant, but only one side is entitled to SJ.

Had a property interest = summary judgment for the Plaintiff.
Did not have a property interest = summary judgment for the Defendant.
(edited)
singhski
singhski 2024-10-12 05:30 p.m.
Have another Judge weigh in on the issue, perhaps they could give some valuable advice.
singhski
singhski 2024-10-12 05:30 p.m.
Judicial indecisiveness is not the bar for denying motions.
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-12 06:35 p.m.
@singhski @DauuX Unfortunately the game will not allow me to send a ruling for some odd reason
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-12 06:35 p.m.
so I have attached such to the trello card
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-12 06:35 p.m.
CASE INFORMATION**

IN THE MAYFLOWER DISTRICT COURT FOR CLARK COUNTY

---

CV-0013-24 TDark99 v. zrihem, turbanwarfare

Trial Type: Civil

Judge Assigned: Judge acerxtro - Courtroom 107

Complaint Attached: Complaint Link

---

UPCOMING COURT DATES



PAST COURT EVENTS



PARTIES**

```
Complai...
Comments
5
Labels
Civil
singhskisinghski
Yes, motion to reconsider once you have ruled.
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-12 06:37 p.m.
Let me know if you are continuing this
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-12 06:43 p.m.
@acerxtro you're not the chief judge
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-12 06:44 p.m.
Im assuming its an old copy paste
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-12 06:44 p.m.
(Dont take this as some kind of an attack, just noticed it :😭:)
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-12 06:45 p.m.
oh yeah(edited)
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-12 06:45 p.m.
Good catch @DauuX
singhski
singhski 2024-10-13 03:58 a.m.
Holy moly this might be the worst ruling I have ever read.
acerxtroacerxtro
Let me know if you are continuing this
singhski
singhski 2024-10-13 03:58 a.m.
I am
singhskisinghski
I am
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-13 12:11 p.m.
Motion denied
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-13 12:12 p.m.
The ruling is extremely straight forward, if you disagree with the SCOTUS cases presented, I encourage you to march down to the Supreme Court building and voice your opinion to the old men on the court
acerxtroacerxtro
The ruling is extremely straight forward, if you disagree with the SCOTUS cases presented, I encourage you to march down to the Supreme Court building and voice your opinion to the...
singhski
singhski 2024-10-13 12:12 p.m.
It's ridden with miscitations
singhski
singhski 2024-10-13 12:24 p.m.
@acerxtro So are you denying us leave to file reconsideration?
singhskisinghski
@acerxtro So are you denying us leave to file reconsideration?
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-13 12:28 p.m.
You can file it, but I am relatively certain that it will not be granted(edited)
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-13 03:17 p.m.
@acerxtro If we're going to have trial, I ask that we begin very soon
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-13 03:18 p.m.
This case has already been delayed before
DauuXDauuX
@acerxtro If we're going to have trial, I ask that we begin very soon
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-13 03:18 p.m.
@singhski wishes to file a motion for reconsideration
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-13 03:18 p.m.
I am awaiting it
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-13 03:18 p.m.
Yeah, I just meant after that's submitted
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-13 03:19 p.m.
I do agree there are some stones left unturned and trial could be beneficial
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-15 04:36 a.m.
@singhski where motion
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-15 08:33 a.m.
The pretrial period has ended.
@DauuX @singhski
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-15 08:33 a.m.
We will now move onto scheduling.
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-15 08:33 a.m.
List availabilities for trial (coordinate with witnesses too)
acerxtroacerxtro
@singhski wishes to file a motion for reconsideration
singhski
singhski 2024-10-15 08:50 a.m.
It hasn’t even been 48 hours
acerxtroacerxtro
List availabilities for trial (coordinate with witnesses too)
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-15 08:55 a.m.
I should be available every day from 11 am to 5 pm EST (maybe not on Friday, I don't know yet), on Saturdays I can do 6 am to 6 pm EST
singhskisinghski
It hasn’t even been 48 hours
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-15 04:48 p.m.
You had 3 days
acerxtroacerxtro
You had 3 days
singhski
singhski 2024-10-15 05:10 p.m.
ONCE YOU HAVE RULED(edited)
singhski
singhski 2024-10-15 05:10 p.m.
You didn’t rule on that day
singhskisinghski
ONCE YOU HAVE RULED(edited)
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-15 05:51 p.m.
You have 20 hours
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-15 05:51 p.m.
No more
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-15 05:54 p.m.
@acerxtro @singhski If trial does happen, can we just skip authenticating evidence
DauuXDauuX
@acerxtro @singhski If trial does happen, can we just skip authenticating evidence
singhski
singhski 2024-10-16 02:36 a.m.
No
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-16 11:44 a.m.
No..
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-16 01:27 p.m.
Its additional effort and would be fine if both parties knew all the evidence was unaltered
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-16 01:28 p.m.
but alright
justind20
justind20 2024-10-16 08:42 p.m.
@acerxtro The Solicitor General’s Office kindly request an extension to file our motion to reconsider. We are a 3 man team with 4 pending appeals before the Supreme Court and several District Court cases.

We don’t intend to unnecessarily delay proceedings any further, but we are stretched thin and have not had adequate time to prepare our motion. We ask for understanding from Your Honor and the Petitioner as we tackle the workload we have while also maintaining irl obligations such as school and work (which carry importance).
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-16 08:43 p.m.
How long @justind20
justind20
justind20 2024-10-16 08:44 p.m.
72 hours if you approve, I have another attorney coming in to assist and ensure the motion is filed. As I said, we are overwhelmed.
justind20justind20
72 hours if you approve, I have another attorney coming in to assist and ensure the motion is filed. As I said, we are overwhelmed.
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-16 08:45 p.m.
72h
@DauuX @singhski @justind20
justind20
justind20 2024-10-16 08:45 p.m.
Thank you, we appreciate it.
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-16 08:45 p.m.
If you submit it 72h and 1m after, I will not consider it
justind20
justind20 2024-10-16 08:45 p.m.
Understood
Doogy
Doogy 2024-10-18 02:34 p.m.
@Deleted User Added from filed NOA (I'm just doing clerk duty and have no active interest in this case, thanks)
Doogy
Doogy 2024-10-18 02:34 p.m.
@acerxtro ^
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-18 03:26 p.m.
Thanks
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-18 09:46 p.m.
@Nicklaus has been added
Nicklaus
Nicklaus 2024-10-18 09:47 p.m.
this was filed earlier
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-19 12:38 a.m.
Do you wish to formulate a response @DauuX
acerxtroacerxtro
Do you wish to formulate a response @DauuX
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-19 01:29 a.m.
I waive
NicklausNicklaus
this was filed earlier
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-19 12:39 p.m.
Ok I will accept the motion to reconsider
@DauuX @Nicklaus @singhski
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-19 12:39 p.m.
If either party wishes to submit additional briefing for their side, please inform me of such
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-19 12:40 p.m.
@DauuX I encourage you to do so
acerxtroacerxtro
@DauuX I encourage you to do so
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-19 12:43 p.m.
I will
acerxtroacerxtro
Ok I will accept the motion to reconsider @DauuX @Nicklaus @singhski
singhski
singhski 2024-10-19 02:11 p.m.
By the way this is only to reconsider our motion
singhski
singhski 2024-10-19 02:12 p.m.
We aren’t doing charity work for the Plaintiff
singhski
singhski 2024-10-19 02:12 p.m.
So any supplemental briefs should be surrounding our motion and why summary judgment should or shouldn’t be granted for the Defendants
singhskisinghski
By the way this is only to reconsider our motion
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-19 02:13 p.m.
Reconsidering your motion also means my response is reconsidered
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-19 02:15 p.m.
Affirm
DauuXDauuX
Reconsidering your motion also means my response is reconsidered
singhski
singhski 2024-10-19 02:16 p.m.
Not at all, your response is however.
singhski
singhski 2024-10-19 02:16 p.m.
Unless the ruling was on both of them simultaneously(edited)
singhski
singhski 2024-10-19 02:16 p.m.
I’ve honestly forgotten what was written in it
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-19 02:16 p.m.
"also means my response is reconsidered"
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-19 02:16 p.m.
"not at all, your response is however"
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-19 02:16 p.m.
what
singhski
singhski 2024-10-19 02:16 p.m.
Oh, okay!
singhskisinghski
Unless the ruling was on both of them simultaneously(edited)
Nicklaus
Nicklaus 2024-10-19 03:09 p.m.
they are being treated as cross-motion and motion for sj (as they should be) since it was 1 ruling for both de facto id presume
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-20 10:00 a.m.
Update: The plaintiff is absolutely considered an employee. Myself and my amazing clerk are now moving to the next questions of law in SJ.
acerxtroacerxtro
Update: The plaintiff is absolutely considered an employee. Myself and my amazing clerk are now moving to the next questions of law in SJ.
singhski
singhski 2024-10-20 10:09 a.m.
Being an employee doesn't mean that you have an employment interest, if that were the case, Boards of Regent v Roth would be moot because Roth was definetly an employee.
singhski
singhski 2024-10-20 10:11 a.m.
Also, this is a strange request, but please take your time with this ruling, since I have exams and I would rather that time be spent studying rather than writing briefs.
singhski
singhski 2024-10-20 10:16 a.m.
(like wednesday preferably)
acerxtroacerxtro
Update: The plaintiff is absolutely considered an employee. Myself and my amazing clerk are now moving to the next questions of law in SJ.
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-20 12:07 p.m.
another SOUND judgement by this court.
DauuXDauuX
another SOUND judgement by this court.
Nicklaus
Nicklaus 2024-10-20 12:15 p.m.
Cease the glazing, beta
acerxtroacerxtro
If either party wishes to submit additional briefing for their side, please inform me of such
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-20 03:16 p.m.
Will either party be doing this? @Nicklaus @DauuX
acerxtroacerxtro
Will either party be doing this? @Nicklaus @DauuX
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-20 03:17 p.m.
Well now that the Court found Plaintiff was an employee, I'd generally have to restate my argument
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-20 03:17 p.m.
If I didn't make it clear already, the court has accepted the motion to reconsider both motions and will be doing so. The court has erred in its interpretation of "entitled to judgment as a matter of law."(edited)
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-20 03:17 p.m.
I doubt it will bring new matter
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-20 03:18 p.m.
Besides the Court may grant SJ in favour of the non-moving party, so even a reconsideration of theirs could result either way
Nicklaus
Nicklaus 2024-10-20 03:18 p.m.
i mean i can submit additional briefing on sj to clarify our points
Nicklaus
Nicklaus 2024-10-20 03:18 p.m.
bc im swamped with an appeal rn
Nicklaus
Nicklaus 2024-10-20 03:18 p.m.
is there a deadline!
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-20 03:18 p.m.
Does 2 days work
Nicklaus
Nicklaus 2024-10-20 03:18 p.m.
sure
Nicklaus
Nicklaus 2024-10-20 03:18 p.m.
im not sure that ill submit any but
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-20 03:18 p.m.
Yeah that does work
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-21 04:35 p.m.
@acerxtro @Nicklaus @singhski
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-21 04:35 p.m.
courtesy link
singhski
singhski 2024-10-24 03:26 p.m.
@acerxtro I will file the supplemental brief later tomorrow, thanks.
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-24 03:37 p.m.
The deadline was 2 days ago :😭:
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-24 03:37 p.m.
but sure
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-24 03:37 p.m.
I doubt we wouldve got a ruling before that
DauuXDauuX
The deadline was 2 days ago :😭:
singhski
singhski 2024-10-24 05:43 p.m.
@acerxtro In that case, we won't be filing a supplemental brief.
singhski
singhski 2024-10-24 05:43 p.m.
Unless we get an extension, I am confident in our briefs as they stand currently.
singhskisinghski
@acerxtro In that case, we won't be filing a supplemental brief.
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-24 06:21 p.m.
File it within like 2d
singhskisinghski
Unless we get an extension, I am confident in our briefs as they stand currently.
singhski
singhski 2024-10-25 01:49 p.m.
@acerxtro
singhski
singhski 2024-10-25 01:49 p.m.
I am confident in our briefs as they stand, we don't believe a supplemental brief is necessary.
singhskisinghski
I am confident in our briefs as they stand, we don't believe a supplemental brief is necessary.
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-26 05:39 p.m.
Ok
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-26 05:47 p.m.
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-26 06:15 p.m.
@singhski Do you have any case law or statutes to support these claims here?
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-26 06:20 p.m.
I don't know if this is a miscitation of the NDA Agreement (ironic, isn't it), where the contract actually

1. "makes it so that all persons who 'willingly maintain employment'.. ..automatically consent to [the NDA's] provisions." Plaintiff's Response.
Or 2. has a checkbox or something where you have to confirm/click a box saying you wish to "willingly maintain employment with the MNG"
(edited)
acerxtroacerxtro
I don't know if this is a miscitation of the NDA Agreement (ironic, isn't it), where the contract actually 1. "makes it so that all persons who 'willingly maintain employment'.. ....(edited)
singhski
singhski 2024-10-26 06:44 p.m.
The “checkbox or something” is the Google form
singhski
singhski 2024-10-26 06:46 p.m.
I would have thought that much was clear by now but, woe, alas.(edited)
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-26 06:53 p.m.
Yes but like
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-26 06:53 p.m.
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-26 06:53 p.m.
---

EMPLOYMENT AGREEMENTS

---

By willingly maintaining employment within the Mayflower National Guard all serving guardsmen consent to and affirm the following:

---

SECTION I - AFFIRMATION

_I hereby declare that this agreement is of my own free will to uphold peace and justice within the State of Mayflower and that I shall be held ...
Labels
OFFICIAL POLICY
singhski
singhski 2024-10-26 06:54 p.m.
Manifestation of willingly maintaining employment is created by the NDA
singhski
singhski 2024-10-26 06:54 p.m.
If I say I’m an employee of your chambers, that doesn’t make me an employee of your chambers, if I start writing your rulings, that doesn’t make me an employee of your chambers
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-26 06:54 p.m.
How is someone required to sign the NDA in order to have the property interest (or be considered an employee)
singhski
singhski 2024-10-26 06:55 p.m.
Same way, he was on deployments, does not mean he was an employee. Being an employee is laid out by the Google form
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-26 06:55 p.m.
Was the form itself admitted into discovery
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-26 06:56 p.m.
besides just the header
acerxtroacerxtro
How is someone required to sign the NDA in order to have the property interest (or be considered an employee)
singhski
singhski 2024-10-26 06:56 p.m.
It’s trivial really, if you actually read the MSJ instead of trying to fault it, you will understand that the dimensions of property interests in employment have been crafted carefully by the Google form
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-26 06:56 p.m.
I read your MSJ
singhski
singhski 2024-10-26 06:56 p.m.
A property interest doesn’t come out of thin air when someone claims they have it
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-26 06:56 p.m.
But I do not understand how the NDA is the sole decider of the property interest
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-26 06:56 p.m.
Correct
acerxtroacerxtro
But I do not understand how the NDA is the sole decider of the property interest
singhski
singhski 2024-10-26 06:57 p.m.
Because property interests are created by contracts or state law
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-26 06:57 p.m.
I do not contest that
singhski
singhski 2024-10-26 06:57 p.m.
The Google form is that employment contract
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-26 06:58 p.m.
I think it is this sentence that is making me scratch my head

To break this down, to have a “constitutionally protected property interest in [your] employment” you must sign the NDA and affirm that you wish to “willingly maintain employment with the MNG”.
singhski
singhski 2024-10-26 06:58 p.m.
He did not sign that, and thus can not have a unilateral expectation
singhskisinghski
The Google form is that employment contract
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-26 06:58 p.m.
One's entire employment hinges on the NDA?
acerxtroacerxtro
One's entire employment hinges on the NDA?
singhski
singhski 2024-10-26 07:00 p.m.
Correct, I have provided instances where it was common practice that employment prospects are denied when the prospect fails to sign the NDA
singhski
singhski 2024-10-26 07:00 p.m.
GO#8 essentially lays out the bare bones structure of what that NDA stipulates
singhskisinghski
Correct, I have provided instances where it was common practice that employment prospects are denied when the prospect fails to sign the NDA
singhski
singhski 2024-10-26 07:01 p.m.
Prime example of that is Turban announcement
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:01 p.m.
I would believe GO#8 is different from the NDA
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:01 p.m.
Since GO#8 is on all the agreements
singhski
singhski 2024-10-26 07:01 p.m.
Yes
singhskisinghski
Correct, I have provided instances where it was common practice that employment prospects are denied when the prospect fails to sign the NDA
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:02 p.m.
I agree that someone can be punished for failing to sign it
singhski
singhski 2024-10-26 07:02 p.m.
But the NDA is needed to manifest both the willingness of the employee and the recognition that they have read the defense policy and will abide by it and the recognition of the agency that they are hiring the prospect as an employee
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:03 p.m.
I would have liked to have seen the entire NDA form
acerxtroacerxtro
I agree that someone can be punished for failing to sign it
singhski
singhski 2024-10-26 07:03 p.m.
Command was unable to do it earlier because Etsuzo hired the Plaintiff secretly
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:03 p.m.
as it was on August 27th, 2024
singhskisinghski
But the NDA is needed to manifest both the willingness of the employee and the recognition that they have read the defense policy and will abide by it and the recognition of the ag...
singhski
singhski 2024-10-26 07:04 p.m.
Very clearly the aspects of the NDA are not met by the conversation (which does not equate to an implied contract) between Etsuzo and the Plaintiff because the defense policy was sent after he agreed he would abide by said policy
singhski
singhski 2024-10-26 07:05 p.m.
We aren’t talking about terms of services here, we are talking about employment contracts, the two are extremely distinct in nature.
singhskisinghski
Command was unable to do it earlier because Etsuzo hired the Plaintiff secretly
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:06 p.m.
Here's the problem that this presents though
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:06 p.m.
if the employee has no way of knowing about or accessing the NDA
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:06 p.m.
and, as such, cannot sign it
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:06 p.m.
then an employer can just keep the NDA secret and fire people for whatever
acerxtroacerxtro
then an employer can just keep the NDA secret and fire people for whatever
singhski
singhski 2024-10-26 07:07 p.m.
Then the Plaintiff can sue them for that as they have intentionally hid the NDA
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:07 p.m.
because they never signed the NDA and have no constitutionally protected property interest in their employment (under this logic)
singhski
singhski 2024-10-26 07:07 p.m.
In this case, Etsuzo isn’t the Defendant.
singhski
singhski 2024-10-26 07:08 p.m.
Due process claims can not come to fruition here because there was no constitutionally protected property interest.
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:09 p.m.
I'll have to reread Loudermill, because there are similarities with the facts in both cases,
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:09 p.m.
mainly in that both people should not have been hired in the first place
acerxtroacerxtro
mainly in that both people should not have been hired in the first place
singhski
singhski 2024-10-26 07:10 p.m.
Here’s the counter argument or counter thesis I would combat that with: what if you rule in favour of the Plaintiff and employers, who may be friends with the employee, don’t provide the form to the employee. In that hypothetical ruling, the employee has absolute immunity from adverse action.(edited)
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:10 p.m.
Well I wouldn't be saying they get to walk
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:11 p.m.
they would just get the opportunity to defend themselves (due process)
acerxtroacerxtro
they would just get the opportunity to defend themselves (due process)
singhski
singhski 2024-10-26 07:11 p.m.
Right but what gives them the unilateral expectation of continued employment?
singhski
singhski 2024-10-26 07:11 p.m.
It can’t just be a repeatedly made contention, it has to be backed up with evidence from a contract or state law.
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:12 p.m.
I still have a considerable amount of research on this case to do, but I would assume the existence of the policies contributes some form of expectation
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:12 p.m.
if the policies state "You can be fired for X, Y, and Z," one would reasonably assume their employment isn't at-will
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:12 p.m.
I think DauuX made the same argument in their motion
acerxtroacerxtro
if the policies state "You can be fired for X, Y, and Z," one would reasonably assume their employment isn't at-will
singhski
singhski 2024-10-26 07:13 p.m.
If the policy is to be construed as a contract, there is a waiver of the due process rights anyways.
singhski
singhski 2024-10-26 07:13 p.m.
In GO#8
singhski
singhski 2024-10-26 07:13 p.m.
You can’t sign an employment contract before even receiving it.
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:13 p.m.
I don't know valid contracts beginning with "By willingly maintaining employment.." are but
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:13 p.m.
since silence =/= acceptance
singhski
singhski 2024-10-26 07:15 p.m.
I’d refer you back to my previous hypothetical scenario I provided you, if I say that I am your clerk, abide by your chambers’ policies and do all the work, does that make me your employee?
singhski
singhski 2024-10-26 07:15 p.m.
I could only be your clerk if you hire me explicitly
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:15 p.m.
If I accepted you into the group and you operate under the Courts
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:15 p.m.
yes
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:15 p.m.
if someone just starts adding people to my cases (like shah_khaled), then no
singhski
singhski 2024-10-26 07:16 p.m.
In the same way, the Plaintiff can operate as a Guardsman, doesn’t mean he is/was.
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:16 p.m.
If I steal an R21M and prance about in a guardsmen outfit, then no
singhski
singhski 2024-10-26 07:16 p.m.
There’s no unilateral expectation of continued employment beyond what is expressly stipulated by state law or a contract. That’s the bottom line.
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:16 p.m.
but if I am accepted into the group, I think any reasonable person would conclude that I am an employee
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:17 p.m.
as I would work for the MNG then
acerxtroacerxtro
but if I am accepted into the group, I think any reasonable person would conclude that I am an employee
singhski
singhski 2024-10-26 07:17 p.m.
The word “employee” has its own nuances. Without a contract, you can’t assume your employment isn’t at-will or temporary.
singhski
singhski 2024-10-26 07:18 p.m.
Technically his employment was whatever MNG says it was since those were the circumstances he was hired in
singhski
singhski 2024-10-26 07:18 p.m.
MNG says he wasn’t supposed to be an employee, so he was dishonourably discharged.
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:19 p.m.
and we are absolutely positive that there were no employment rights or laws in place during this time
acerxtroacerxtro
and we are absolutely positive that there were no employment rights or laws in place during this time
singhski
singhski 2024-10-26 07:20 p.m.
Yes
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:20 p.m.
and we must use this archaic process
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:20 p.m.
ok
acerxtroacerxtro
But I do not understand how the NDA is the sole decider of the property interest
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-26 07:20 p.m.
On God.
singhskisinghski
Here’s the counter argument or counter thesis I would combat that with: what if you rule in favour of the Plaintiff and employers, who may be friends with the employee, don’t provi...(edited)
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-26 07:22 p.m.
That'a nonsense
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-26 07:22 p.m.
He was required to consent to all employment policies and that includes GO#8
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-26 07:22 p.m.
There's no reason to assume it's any less binding
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-26 07:22 p.m.
cc @acerxtro
acerxtroacerxtro
I think DauuX made the same argument in their motion
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-26 07:23 p.m.
I did, yes
DauuXDauuX
He was required to consent to all employment policies and that includes GO#8
singhski
singhski 2024-10-26 07:23 p.m.
Without knowing about the existence of said employment policies
singhski
singhski 2024-10-26 07:24 p.m.
This is damaging to the judicial economy even, if we keep entertaining litigants who don’t read their employment contracts, our judicial system would slow down tremendously.
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-26 07:24 p.m.
Whether he read it or not is irrelevant
singhski
singhski 2024-10-26 07:24 p.m.
It is
singhski
singhski 2024-10-26 07:24 p.m.
You are comparing an employment contract with terms of services
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-26 07:25 p.m.
Not by any existimg standard
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-26 07:25 p.m.
existing*
singhskisinghski
This is damaging to the judicial economy even, if we keep entertaining litigants who don’t read their employment contracts, our judicial system would slow down tremendously.
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:25 p.m.
The law does very little to protect those who fail to read their own contracts and sign anyway
singhski
singhski 2024-10-26 07:25 p.m.
There is a reason why IRL federal and state courts have made those two distinct
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-26 07:25 p.m.
Also, we need not assess the "by willingly maintaining" clause, as consent was explicitly expressed
acerxtroacerxtro
The law does very little to protect those who fail to read their own contracts and sign anyway
singhski
singhski 2024-10-26 07:25 p.m.
You unfounded the proposition that the conversation was a contract yourself at the hearing
singhski
singhski 2024-10-26 07:25 p.m.
The standard used for a contract was not met
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-26 07:25 p.m.
Not true..?
singhski
singhski 2024-10-26 07:26 p.m.
Completely true
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-26 07:26 p.m.
Acer literally said a contract was made, but that it wasn't supposed to happen
singhski
singhski 2024-10-26 07:26 p.m.
@acerxtro If you will recall, you said a contract was made, but then said the 5th prong was not met due to the Plaintiffs actions.
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:26 p.m.
The Discord DMs between the 2 are not black and white
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:27 p.m.
“To have a property interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire for it. He must have more than a unilateral expectation of it. He must, instead, have a legitimate claim of entitlement to it.” Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 (1972).
acerxtroacerxtro
“To have a property interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire for it. He must have more than a unilateral expectation of it. He must, i...
singhski
singhski 2024-10-26 07:28 p.m.
Precisely, so this claim is unravelled completely if the Court finds these two things; (a) the NDA is how the Plaintiff can obtain a legitimate claim of entitlement to it and (b) the conversation was not a contract
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:30 p.m.
Can I see what the NDA form stated
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:30 p.m.
because I don't think that was an employment contract
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:30 p.m.
I think that was just a non disclosure agreement
singhskisinghski
@acerxtro If you will recall, you said a contract was made, but then said the 5th prong was not met due to the Plaintiffs actions.
singhski
singhski 2024-10-26 07:30 p.m.
Which is manifestation of abidance with the contract, if that manifestation does not exist, it suggests that the contract did not have a binding effect on the Plaintiff.
singhski
singhski 2024-10-26 07:30 p.m.
That much can be inferred from the nature of the conversation anyways, we need to bare in mind these are two friends.
acerxtroacerxtro
I think that was just a non disclosure agreement
singhski
singhski 2024-10-26 07:31 p.m.
MNGs practices and understandings recognise that when that form is signed, the employee has his employment rights completely intact.
singhski
singhski 2024-10-26 07:31 p.m.
It should be in the discovery
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-26 07:31 p.m.
Thats bollocks
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-26 07:31 p.m.
We subpoenad the form but it wasnt provided
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:32 p.m.
It is not
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:32 p.m.
yeah
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-26 07:32 p.m.
It wasnt a fully fledged contract by any means
singhskisinghski
singhski
singhski 2024-10-26 07:32 p.m.
At the moment this is all I have
singhski
singhski 2024-10-26 07:33 p.m.
Look at the title, it is not just a NDA
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:33 p.m.
actually before I post the link to that NDA
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:33 p.m.
Does either party have any objections to sealing this case channel(edited)
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:33 p.m.
so the average joe does not spam the form
singhski
singhski 2024-10-26 07:34 p.m.
also read the description
acerxtroacerxtro
Does either party have any objections to sealing this case channel(edited)
singhski
singhski 2024-10-26 07:34 p.m.
No, I do not.
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:34 p.m.
ok so this is not just an NDA
acerxtroacerxtro
ok so this is not just an NDA
singhski
singhski 2024-10-26 07:34 p.m.
Yes, agreements PLURAL.
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:35 p.m.
Form asks for information about user + this
singhskisinghski
Yes, agreements PLURAL.
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:35 p.m.
Ok
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:35 p.m.
so did you mean the property interest isn't contingent on someone signing the NDA
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:35 p.m.
and should be contingent on someone signing all of these forms
acerxtroacerxtro
and should be contingent on someone signing all of these forms
singhski
singhski 2024-10-26 07:36 p.m.
Yes, also in my MSJ I have cited an opinion which states that rules or understandings (of the agency) can be used to determine property interests
singhski
singhski 2024-10-26 07:36 p.m.
The understanding was that a prospect who does not sign that form is not an employee
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:37 p.m.
If this guy was told to sign the form that would be one thing
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:38 p.m.
but this guy seemingly had no knowledge that it existed
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:38 p.m.
What does that mean? I don't know, but it's not good for this case
acerxtroacerxtro
but this guy seemingly had no knowledge that it existed
singhski
singhski 2024-10-26 07:38 p.m.
And that wasn’t the fault of Turban or Zrihem
singhski
singhski 2024-10-26 07:38 p.m.
Turban and Zrihem were simply doing their jobs and removed someone who was never actually a recognised employee
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:39 p.m.
He was recognized
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:39 p.m.
Maybe not by those 2
singhski
singhski 2024-10-26 07:39 p.m.
Those two are the only that matter
singhski
singhski 2024-10-26 07:39 p.m.
Zrihem was the Major General
singhski
singhski 2024-10-26 07:40 p.m.
Whosoever he recognises as an employee must be an employee, because his understanding is, prescribed by his duties, the understanding of the agency.
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:41 p.m.
Well not every employee needs Zrihem's expressed recognition to be considered an employee
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:41 p.m.
Zrihem doesn't have that ability
acerxtroacerxtro
Well not every employee needs Zrihem's expressed recognition to be considered an employee
singhski
singhski 2024-10-26 07:42 p.m.
They are given expressed recognition when employers mention who they recruited to department command
singhski
singhski 2024-10-26 07:43 p.m.
Perhaps even some due diligence could have been done on the Plaintiffs part, he had access to the form, albeit it was closed, and could have mentioned that to Etsuzo.
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:44 p.m.
Was the plaintiff ever informed about the form
acerxtroacerxtro
Was the plaintiff ever informed about the form
singhski
singhski 2024-10-26 07:44 p.m.
The whole Guard was, I’d expect new employees would scroll up the announcements channel, I doubt that he didn’t see the form until arbitration.
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:45 p.m.
I don't think new employees are obligated to scroll through and read the entire contents of an announcement channel upon their hiring
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:45 p.m.
nor expected
acerxtroacerxtro
I don't think new employees are obligated to scroll through and read the entire contents of an announcement channel upon their hiring
singhski
singhski 2024-10-26 07:45 p.m.
They aren’t, but we’re talking about whether he saw it or not. The chances he didn’t are very low.
singhskisinghski
The whole Guard was, I’d expect new employees would scroll up the announcements channel, I doubt that he didn’t see the form until arbitration.
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:46 p.m.
The plaintiff was not part of the guard at that time (according to the plaintiff's counsel)(edited)
acerxtroacerxtro
The plaintiff was not part of the guard at that time (according to the plaintiff's counsel)(edited)
singhski
singhski 2024-10-26 07:46 p.m.
He wasn’t, but the message was sent 2 days prior to him joining.
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:46 p.m.
Where he was not present
singhski
singhski 2024-10-26 07:47 p.m.
Sure, but if he opened the announcement channel, he would see the form highlighted by the ping
singhski
singhski 2024-10-26 07:47 p.m.
Since it would have been a more recent announcement
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:47 p.m.
He would not have received the ping if it was done before he was roled
singhski
singhski 2024-10-26 07:47 p.m.
Either way I’d rather not delve into that
singhskisinghski
Precisely, so this claim is unravelled completely if the Court finds these two things; (a) the NDA is how the Plaintiff can obtain a legitimate claim of entitlement to it and (b) t...
singhski
singhski 2024-10-26 07:47 p.m.
The crux of the issue is this
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:48 p.m.
we are rebranding NDA to the employment agreement, correct?
singhski
singhski 2024-10-26 07:48 p.m.
Yes
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:48 p.m.
Ok
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:49 p.m.
The court is still considering this matter and isn't expected to have a ruling until Friday at the earliest
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:49 p.m.
I expect this case to be appealed no matter which way I rule, even if I try to rule the "correct" or "right" way here
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-26 07:50 p.m.
hopefully this issue will never need to be revisited due to this state actually having employment laws
acerxtroacerxtro
but this guy seemingly had no knowledge that it existed
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-26 08:16 p.m.
Also the form was due before he was employed
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-26 08:18 p.m.
Also that contract is hardly binding
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-26 08:19 p.m.
It doesn't require employees to consent to the Defense Policy
DauuXDauuX
It doesn't require employees to consent to the Defense Policy
singhski
singhski 2024-10-27 09:13 a.m.
It requires employees to consent to parts of the DP they can consent to.
singhski
singhski 2024-10-27 09:17 a.m.
The parts of the DP they can consent to, they must consent to.
singhski
singhski 2024-10-27 09:17 a.m.
Your country doesn't require you to consent to their laws, which is why consent to the DP does not constitute employment.
singhski
singhski 2024-10-27 09:18 a.m.
An absurd proposition. It is imposed, but certain parts have to have a degree of consent because they involve specific rights of the employee.
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-27 09:20 a.m.
You're lost
acerxtroacerxtro
The court is still considering this matter and isn't expected to have a ruling until Friday at the earliest
singhski
singhski 2024-10-27 09:20 a.m.
If this ruling could be expedited, I would greatly appreciate it.
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-27 09:20 a.m.
An employer cannot burden you with policies you didn't agree to
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-27 09:21 a.m.
Unless you agreed to him making such policies
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-27 09:21 a.m.
Comparison to countries is quite silly
DauuXDauuX
An employer cannot burden you with policies you didn't agree to
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-27 09:22 a.m.
Part of every contract is the mutual understanding (and often expressed condent) to be bound by policies
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-27 09:22 a.m.
consent*
DauuXDauuX
Part of every contract is the mutual understanding (and often expressed condent) to be bound by policies
singhski
singhski 2024-10-27 09:23 a.m.
Exactly. That mutual understanding was not manifested when the Plaintiff disobeyed orders. The whole of the 5th prong is not applied unless the contract itself is being questioned, which it is.
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-27 09:24 a.m.
Also this Court has already found that Plaintiff was an employee; the only relevant question is whether there was more than a unilateral expectation of continued employment
singhskisinghski
Exactly. That mutual understanding was not manifested when the Plaintiff disobeyed orders. The whole of the 5th prong is not applied unless the contract itself is being questioned,...
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-27 09:24 a.m.
Breaking a contract does not invalidate its existence..
singhski
singhski 2024-10-27 09:24 a.m.
There was not, since there was no contract to create that "unilateral expectation".
DauuXDauuX
Breaking a contract does not invalidate its existence..
singhski
singhski 2024-10-27 09:24 a.m.
Read what I said.
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-27 09:24 a.m.
I did
singhski
singhski 2024-10-27 09:24 a.m.
You didn't.
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-27 09:25 a.m.
I'm quite sure I did
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-27 09:25 a.m.
Anyway I'm not going to argue with you because there's just no use
singhski
singhski 2024-10-27 09:25 a.m.
I'm not saying that its existence is being invalidated, there is such things such as breach of contract. We are questioning whether there was a contract, and a contract requires mutual understanding, if that mutual understanding is not manifested, it can be safely assumed that that contract had no binding effect on the Plaintiff.
acerxtroacerxtro
we are rebranding NDA to the employment agreement, correct?
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-27 09:26 a.m.
An employment agreement that doesnt contain any provision you'd be bound by the whole Defense Policy, yet you are
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-27 09:26 a.m.
That agreement is not a lawful contract, consideration is lacking there
DauuXDauuX
That agreement is not a lawful contract, consideration is lacking there
singhski
singhski 2024-10-27 09:26 a.m.
Well then that destroys your argument further, if there are no contracts, no one has a unilateral expectation of continued employment.
singhskisinghski
I'm not saying that its existence is being invalidated, there is such things such as breach of contract. We are questioning whether there was a contract, and a contract requires mu...
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-27 09:27 a.m.
And Plaintiff clearly agreeing to the DP wasnt manifestation at all :😭:
DauuXDauuX
And Plaintiff clearly agreeing to the DP wasnt manifestation at all :😭:
singhski
singhski 2024-10-27 09:27 a.m.
The Plaintiff recklessly shooting an Officer after disobeying officers definitely was not manifestation.(edited)
singhskisinghski
Well then that destroys your argument further, if there are no contracts, no one has a unilateral expectation of continued employment.
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-27 09:27 a.m.
It literally helps it because then it means all the contracts are implied :😭::😭::😭:
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-27 09:27 a.m.
And so is this one
DauuXDauuX
It literally helps it because then it means all the contracts are implied :😭::😭::😭:
singhski
singhski 2024-10-27 09:27 a.m.
Sure, the others are implied because the DP was sent to them BEFORE they agreed to it
singhski
singhski 2024-10-27 09:28 a.m.
this is an employment contract, not terms of services
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-27 09:28 a.m.
You'd have to prove that
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-27 09:28 a.m.
Which you didn't
singhski
singhski 2024-10-27 09:28 a.m.
I have
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-27 09:28 a.m.
No
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-27 09:28 a.m.
You didnt provide evidence that all (or a large part) of employees hired in similar circumstances were treated any differently
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-27 09:29 a.m.
What you provided was one or two pieces of evidence, hardly a showing of procedure or custom
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-27 09:29 a.m.
Anyway toodles
singhski
singhski 2024-10-27 09:30 a.m.
It would really help if the Defendants didn't keep leaving
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-27 09:30 a.m.
We'll wait for the ruling
singhski
singhski 2024-10-27 09:30 a.m.
Okay, just so you know, ad-hominem insults aren't going to fool the literati on the Supreme Court. I don't use them against you, and I don't appreciate when you use them against me.
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-27 09:31 a.m.
What ad hominem :😭:
singhskisinghski
Okay, just so you know, ad-hominem insults aren't going to fool the literati on the Supreme Court. I don't use them against you, and I don't appreciate when you use them against me...
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-27 09:33 a.m.
If you mean "toodles," then that means bye
DauuXDauuX
If you mean "toodles," then that means bye
singhski
singhski 2024-10-27 09:33 a.m.
No.
DauuXDauuX
You're lost
singhski
singhski 2024-10-27 09:33 a.m.
.
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-27 09:34 a.m.
Ah! I stand by that statement
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-27 09:34 a.m.
I fail to see the coherence
DauuXDauuX
I fail to see the coherence
singhski
singhski 2024-10-27 09:35 a.m.
Me too, it's a random stray completely unnecessary to your argument.
singhski
singhski 2024-10-27 09:35 a.m.
All it shows is that your argument is fallacious.
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-27 09:35 a.m.
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-27 09:36 a.m.
I rest my case
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-27 09:36 a.m.
Its the same story all around
singhski
singhski 2024-10-27 09:37 a.m.
Fools too think alike.
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-27 09:38 a.m.
Contempt!
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-27 09:38 a.m.
and ad hominem :(
DauuXDauuX
and ad hominem :(
singhski
singhski 2024-10-27 09:38 a.m.
It's what happens when person B uses ad hominem, person A retaliates. I thought you would know what follows an ad hominem attack.
singhski
singhski 2024-10-27 09:39 a.m.
(also I'm person A because I'm right :P)
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-27 09:39 a.m.
I'd expect you to be the better man if you lecture me
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-27 09:39 a.m.
Otherwise it's quite hypocritical
singhski
singhski 2024-10-27 09:39 a.m.
It's an inevitability with ad hominem.
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-27 09:39 a.m.
No, you're just looking for excuses
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-27 09:39 a.m.
:P
singhski
singhski 2024-10-27 09:40 a.m.
OK
acerxtroacerxtro
The court is still considering this matter and isn't expected to have a ruling until Friday at the earliest
singhski
singhski 2024-10-27 09:44 a.m.
With this, we've had over 2 weeks of deliberation on the motions, it shouldn't take too long.
singhskisinghski
Your country doesn't require you to consent to their laws, which is why consent to the DP does not constitute employment.
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-27 10:32 a.m.
I don’t understand the argument here.

My country (the US) doesn’t require me to consent to its laws. That doesn’t mean I’m not a member of it (a citizen.)
acerxtroacerxtro
I don’t understand the argument here. My country (the US) doesn’t require me to consent to its laws. That doesn’t mean I’m not a member of it (a citizen.)
singhski
singhski 2024-10-27 10:50 a.m.
It's exactly what you have wrote
singhski
singhski 2024-10-27 10:50 a.m.
The US doesn't require you to consent to its laws, doesn't mean you're not a citizen
singhski
singhski 2024-10-27 10:50 a.m.
MNG doesn't require you to consent to it specific policies, doesn't mean you're not an employee because you haven't consented to those specific policies
singhskisinghski
MNG doesn't require you to consent to it specific policies, doesn't mean you're not an employee because you haven't consented to those specific policies
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-27 11:36 a.m.
I thought this was the direct opposite of what you were arguing
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-27 11:57 a.m.
:🙈:
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-30 08:04 p.m.
My clerk and I are still preparing the ruling and conducting research
acerxtroacerxtro
My clerk and I are still preparing the ruling and conducting research
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-31 06:24 a.m.
no way this guy is ur clerk
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-31 06:24 a.m.
@Evexom traitor
Nicklaus
Nicklaus 2024-10-31 08:22 a.m.
umm that gentleman is also employed by the doj
Nicklaus
Nicklaus 2024-10-31 08:22 a.m.
there seems to be some CONCERNING conflicts here
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-10-31 09:19 a.m.
will be wary of such
DauuX
DauuX 2024-10-31 09:27 a.m.
God bless
DauuX
DauuX 2024-11-03 06:56 p.m.
Hello
DauuX
DauuX 2024-11-03 06:56 p.m.
@acerxtro
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-11-03 09:56 p.m.
Hello
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-11-03 09:56 p.m.
I promise we are not Arthur_Chen’ing
acerxtroacerxtro
I promise we are not Arthur_Chen’ing
singhski
singhski 2024-11-05 11:32 a.m.
ugh
DauuX
DauuX 2024-11-09 11:13 a.m.
Just realised mr singh has confirmed he'd tried to drown all of us in paperwork
DauuX
DauuX 2024-11-09 11:13 a.m.
despite his continued assurances that he wasnt running us in circles
DauuX
DauuX 2024-11-09 11:13 a.m.
:🙈:
DauuXDauuX
Just realised mr singh has confirmed he'd tried to drown all of us in paperwork
singhski
singhski 2024-11-09 11:51 a.m.
?
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-11-09 04:51 p.m.
this was completely inaccurate
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-11-09 04:51 p.m.
The court will have a final deadline of next Friday for a ruling
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-11-09 05:10 p.m.
willing will be expedited for this case btw
@DauuX @singhski
acerxtroacerxtro
The court will have a final deadline of next Friday for a ruling
DauuX
DauuX 2024-11-09 05:17 p.m.
We dropped libel
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-11-09 05:17 p.m.
yeah
acerxtroacerxtro
willing will be expedited for this case btw @DauuX @singhski
singhski
singhski 2024-11-11 03:53 p.m.
please
DauuX
DauuX 2024-11-13 05:39 a.m.
@acerxtro
Typical
Typical 2024-11-13 01:22 p.m.
Fax^
singhski
singhski 2024-11-13 01:38 p.m.
Let not sloth dim your honors new begot
singhski
singhski 2024-11-13 01:39 p.m.
to borrow from Shakespeare
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-11-13 04:38 p.m.
ruling due in 2d and the court is still perusing through arguments from the defense
singhski
singhski 2024-11-15 04:19 p.m.
@acerxtro today
singhskisinghski
@acerxtro today
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-11-15 10:26 p.m.
:lester:
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-11-15 10:26 p.m.
I did say today
acerxtroacerxtro
I did say today
singhski
singhski 2024-11-16 08:45 a.m.
You said today like 3 weeks ago as well, yet here we are
singhski
singhski 2024-11-16 08:46 a.m.
not a good look on you
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-11-16 12:19 p.m.
@singhski @DauuX ex parte
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-11-16 12:43 p.m.
@singhski @DauuX Which counts are still in use here
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-11-16 12:43 p.m.
I know libel isn't
acerxtroacerxtro
@singhski @DauuX Which counts are still in use here
DauuX
DauuX 2024-11-16 12:44 p.m.
Only libel was dropped
DauuX
DauuX 2024-11-16 12:44 p.m.
And from relief we dropped reinstatement
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-11-16 12:45 p.m.
Ok
DauuXDauuX
Only libel was dropped
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-11-16 12:45 p.m.
What about removal of records
acerxtroacerxtro
What about removal of records
DauuX
DauuX 2024-11-16 12:47 p.m.
I'm fairly certain they've been removed anyway by zrihem who tried to conceal it
DauuX
DauuX 2024-11-16 12:47 p.m.
But if anything from that discharge and blacklist remains, that ought to be removed
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-11-16 12:50 p.m.
@DauuX 100k for punitive is a little steep
acerxtroacerxtro
@DauuX 100k for punitive is a little steep
DauuX
DauuX 2024-11-16 12:50 p.m.
Well you can lower it
DauuX
DauuX 2024-11-16 12:51 p.m.
100k is what the statute allows
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-11-16 12:58 p.m.
@DauuX @singhski
@Typical
@zrihem (this guy left) @turbanwarfare (this guy also left)
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-11-16 12:58 p.m.
ruling out hooray
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-11-16 12:59 p.m.
@singhski I believe you talked a little about state SCs usually creating precedent for their states over matters such as these
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-11-16 12:59 p.m.
I have included a recommendation for appeal, as I believe the contents of this case are relatively interesting and intricate, and the SC should take a look into them(edited)
DauuX
DauuX 2024-11-16 01:02 p.m.
God bless
DauuX
DauuX 2024-11-16 01:02 p.m.
I don't really see a need for that
DauuX
DauuX 2024-11-16 01:02 p.m.
The case is rather moot because of PSA
DauuX
DauuX 2024-11-16 01:03 p.m.
And the law and precedent is clear in plaintiff's circumstances
singhski
singhski 2024-11-16 01:36 p.m.
@acerxtro @DauuX we do intend to appeal
DauuX
DauuX 2024-11-16 01:37 p.m.
Yes of that I was certain
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-11-16 01:37 p.m.
Same here
shah
shah 2024-11-17 02:20 p.m.
Can you upload the ruling when you have the time:

https://trello.com/c/UNTXcw4L/59-tdark99-v-zrihem-et-al
CASE INFORMATION**

IN THE MAYFLOWER DISTRICT COURT FOR CLARK COUNTY

---

CV-0013-24 TDark99 v. zrihem, turbanwarfare

Trial Type: Civil

Judge Assigned: Judge acerxtro - Courtroom 107

Complaint Attached: Complaint Link

---

UPCOMING COURT DATES



PAST COURT EVENTS



PARTIES**

```
Complai...
Comments
5
Labels
Civil
shah
shah 2024-11-17 02:20 p.m.
@acerxtro
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-11-17 02:55 p.m.
Yep
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-11-17 02:59 p.m.
Done @shah
shah
shah 2024-11-17 03:00 p.m.
ty
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-11-19 12:32 a.m.
@singhski status on ordered relief &/ petition
singhski
singhski 2024-11-20 12:28 p.m.
@acerxtro I'm going to motion to reconsider
singhski
singhski 2024-11-20 12:28 p.m.
first
singhski
singhski 2024-11-20 12:30 p.m.
because my petition raises some new arguments, and I'd like to ensure the lower court was presented with these arguments before I petition
singhski
singhski 2024-11-20 12:54 p.m.
We believe that while yes, you were right about some things, with all things considered, the plaintiff's claims still are unfounded.
singhskisinghski
@acerxtro I'm going to motion to reconsider
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-11-20 03:10 p.m.
I encourage you to appeal instead
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-11-20 03:10 p.m.
but
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-11-20 03:10 p.m.
@DauuX do you wish to file a response to the motion
acerxtroacerxtro
I encourage you to appeal instead
singhski
singhski 2024-11-20 03:35 p.m.
I will. Read my reasoning above.
acerxtroacerxtro
@DauuX do you wish to file a response to the motion
DauuX
DauuX 2024-11-20 04:01 p.m.
Lowkey don't have the time
DauuX
DauuX 2024-11-20 04:01 p.m.
I've got my chemistry olympiad this Saturday and I'd rather spend time on that
DauuX
DauuX 2024-11-20 04:23 p.m.
actually my response is as follows
DauuX
DauuX 2024-11-20 04:24 p.m.
the Guard’s disciplinary policy explicitly authorizes termination at-will for insubordination and reckless use of equipment.
DauuX
DauuX 2024-11-20 04:24 p.m.
if something is "at will" but also for a cause (here, insubordination), it is not at will :😭:
DauuX
DauuX 2024-11-20 04:25 p.m.
its called the "zero tolerance policy", meaning these always result in a dishonourable discharge--but there are causes to that
DauuX
DauuX 2024-11-20 04:26 p.m.
furthermore. when there is no explicit contractual agreement (such as here), an employer's policy can be considered terms of employment. especially here: absent such interpretation, there is no consideration and the Guard is unlawfully enforcing its standards upon employees
DauuX
DauuX 2024-11-20 04:27 p.m.
the policy contains a key element of a contract: consideration. an employee gives up their time to complete the military service log weekly, and abide by the policy, and the Guard provides him with equipment, salary, benefits and so on. but only if the policy is seen as that
DauuX
DauuX 2024-11-20 04:27 p.m.
The Guard’s policies do the opposite, explicitly permitting termination under the circumstances presented.
literally textbook termination for a cause
DauuX
DauuX 2024-11-20 04:29 p.m.
though the motion may be granted, as it's asking this Court to "vacate the TRO" (whatever that TRO is)
DauuX
DauuX 2024-11-20 04:29 p.m.
@singhski @acerxtro
DauuX
DauuX 2024-11-20 04:29 p.m.
DauuXDauuX
if something is "at will" but also for a cause (here, insubordination), it is not at will :😭:
singhski
singhski 2024-11-21 01:55 a.m.
At-will employment can have cause, but it doesn't require it.
singhski
singhski 2024-11-21 01:56 a.m.
and the rest of your argument I really don't know what you're talking about
singhski
singhski 2024-11-21 01:56 a.m.
I don't think you know either
DauuXDauuX
Click to see attachment.
singhski
singhski 2024-11-21 01:57 a.m.
@acerxtro Clerical error, but I think I have made it more than clear what we're motioning this Court to do.
singhski
singhski 2024-11-21 02:02 a.m.
Honestly, one google search will tell you about the at-will-employment-doctrine
singhskisinghski
Honestly, one google search will tell you about the at-will-employment-doctrine
DauuX
DauuX 2024-11-21 03:02 a.m.
So the employer has to establish just cause such as insubordination....
DauuXDauuX
So the employer has to establish just cause such as insubordination....
singhski
singhski 2024-11-21 08:46 a.m.
Don’t HAVE to.(edited)
singhski
singhski 2024-11-21 08:47 a.m.
“without having to establish “just cause””
DauuX
DauuX 2024-11-21 08:49 a.m.
I'm saying the emoloyer here needed to establish insubordination to apply the policy...
DauuX
DauuX 2024-11-21 08:49 a.m.
Making it the opposite of at will
DauuX
DauuX 2024-11-21 08:49 a.m.
employer*
DauuXDauuX
I'm saying the emoloyer here needed to establish insubordination to apply the policy...
singhski
singhski 2024-11-21 08:50 a.m.
No… they can terminate him for any reason, the reason they chose was “unfit for service”.
singhski
singhski 2024-11-21 08:50 a.m.
They don’t need to establish anything in at-will terminations, I’m explaining the thought process behind it.
singhskisinghski
No… they can terminate him for any reason, the reason they chose was “unfit for service”.
DauuX
DauuX 2024-11-21 08:51 a.m.
According to..?
DauuXDauuX
According to..?
singhski
singhski 2024-11-21 08:51 a.m.
Do you know how at-will works?
DauuX
DauuX 2024-11-21 08:51 a.m.
According to what is he at will?
singhski
singhski 2024-11-21 08:51 a.m.
So long as it’s not illegal, they can terminate it for whatever.
singhski
singhski 2024-11-21 08:51 a.m.
According to what is he not?
DauuX
DauuX 2024-11-21 08:51 a.m.
The policy
singhski
singhski 2024-11-21 08:51 a.m.
Cite
singhski
singhski 2024-11-21 08:51 a.m.
what gives him tenure
singhski
singhski 2024-11-21 08:52 a.m.
In the policy
DauuX
DauuX 2024-11-21 08:53 a.m.
It says you can be discharged for a few reasons, I think I need not cite that. The fundamental rule at common law is that expressing one (or a few items) intrinsically means the exclusion of others of that category; i.e., stating reasons why one can be discharged means one cannot be discharged for other reasons
singhski
singhski 2024-11-21 08:53 a.m.
Employment remains at will without a contract which says otherwise
DauuX
DauuX 2024-11-21 08:54 a.m.
And if policy is not binding as a contractual agreement here, then there is not a single person legally employed in the Guard
DauuX
DauuX 2024-11-21 08:54 a.m.
Or there was not at the time, since PSA exists now
singhski
singhski 2024-11-21 08:54 a.m.
At will employment is still legal
singhski
singhski 2024-11-21 08:54 a.m.
..?
DauuX
DauuX 2024-11-21 08:54 a.m.
Nobody is saying it isnt...?
DauuXDauuX
It says you can be discharged for a few reasons, I think I need not cite that. The fundamental rule at common law is that expressing one (or a few items) intrinsically means the ex...
DauuX
DauuX 2024-11-21 08:54 a.m.
this is the "more than the unilateral expectation" of continued employment
DauuX
DauuX 2024-11-21 08:55 a.m.
anyway no need to argue anymore
DauuX
DauuX 2024-11-21 08:55 a.m.
you've not changed your mind despite my and acer's best efforts, it won't change now either
singhski
singhski 2024-11-21 08:59 a.m.
Chief Justice EnforcementBeyond once said: “Either you have a slam dunk, or you have a pot you are brewing to confuse me and get me to rule in your favor when you are the one whos wrong.”. Every litigator does this. I admit previously I was the one with the pot, now it’s abundantly clear who has it.
singhski
singhski 2024-11-21 09:00 a.m.
@acerxtro I would appreciate if you rule on this quickly
singhskisinghski
@acerxtro I would appreciate if you rule on this quickly
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-11-21 09:53 a.m.
That's likely not going to happen
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-11-21 09:53 a.m.
you are presenting more complicated issues out of the blue, which requires a shitton of research and backtracking
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-11-21 09:54 a.m.
I've already given a ruling and you have already petitioned to the SC; considering the MTR is on the bottom ring of my priorities list. I have other cases to tend to(edited)
singhskisinghski
Chief Justice EnforcementBeyond once said: “Either you have a slam dunk, or you have a pot you are brewing to confuse me and get me to rule in your favor when you are the one whos ...
DauuX
DauuX 2024-11-21 10:18 a.m.
quoting "chief justice enforcementbeyond" like he's the pope is crazy :😭::😭:
acerxtroacerxtro
I've already given a ruling and you have already petitioned to the SC; considering the MTR is on the bottom ring of my priorities list. I have other cases to tend to(edited)
singhski
singhski 2024-11-21 01:33 p.m.
I haven’t petitioned
singhski
singhski 2024-11-21 01:34 p.m.
suspend the timer for providing relief in that case
singhskisinghski
I haven’t petitioned
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-11-21 02:46 p.m.
Petition then
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-11-21 02:46 p.m.
Because it seems like you just made the pot bigger
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-11-21 02:46 p.m.
And added more ingredients
acerxtroacerxtro
Petition then
singhski
singhski 2024-11-21 02:47 p.m.
It would be inappropriate to do so now
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-11-21 02:47 p.m.
Now is the best time to do so
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-11-21 02:48 p.m.
I've recommended it, you said you would do it
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-11-21 02:48 p.m.
You had me expedite my ruling so you can go to the SC
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-11-21 02:48 p.m.
Obviously if we've spent weeks on this issue with briefs and briefs of information, there is no slam dunk
singhski
singhski 2024-11-21 02:49 p.m.
I intend to bring up these arguments in my petition--in certiorari, it would be improper to petition on issues the lower court hadn't meditated upon.
singhski
singhski 2024-11-21 02:49 p.m.
The argument is very different.
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-11-21 02:49 p.m.
Why wasn't the argument included in one of the first 3 briefs
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-11-21 02:49 p.m.
and motions
singhski
singhski 2024-11-21 02:49 p.m.
It's a shame. It's being brought up now.
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-11-21 02:50 p.m.
Singhski…
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-11-21 02:50 p.m.
I'll get to the motion whenever I can then
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-11-21 02:50 p.m.
actually there is a need for expedition
singhski
singhski 2024-11-21 02:51 p.m.
Thank you.
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-11-21 02:51 p.m.
because there is ordered relief
acerxtroacerxtro
because there is ordered relief
singhski
singhski 2024-11-21 02:52 p.m.
Just to be clear, the ruling would have to include something to rebut the presumption of at-will status.
singhski
singhski 2024-11-21 03:00 p.m.
The defense policy having provisions for for-cause terminations does not rebut the presumption of at-will status.

All that means is that there are provisions for terminating employees under certain conditions, but it does not automatically convert at-will employment into for-cause employment.

The mere existence of such provisions does not create a contractual right to continued employment or limit an employer's ability to terminate an employee without cause unless specific language or an explicit agreement is present to override the at-will presumption. You can look to Bishop & Roth.
singhski
singhski 2024-11-21 03:03 p.m.
"The North Carolina Supreme Court has held that an enforceable expectation of continued public employment in that State can exist only if the employer by statute or contract, has actually granted some form of guarantee." SCOTUS affirmed North Carolina SC's decision in Bishop. Any good textualist would agree that employment is presumed to be at-will unless there is an explicit contractual or statutory provision to the contrary.(edited)
singhski
singhski 2024-11-21 03:06 p.m.
"the employee "held his position at the will and pleasure of the city" necessarily establishes that he had no property interest". Bishop axes property interests for employees hired at-will.
DauuX
DauuX 2024-11-21 03:09 p.m.
cheers cus no one tried to suggest at will employment creates a property interest
Nicklaus
Nicklaus 2024-11-21 04:30 p.m.
guys can we just agree to disagree, hug each other and dismiss this case
Nicklaus
Nicklaus 2024-11-21 04:31 p.m.
thanks
singhski
singhski 2024-11-25 04:07 a.m.
@acerxtro Hi, how long?(edited)
singhskisinghski
@acerxtro Hi, how long?(edited)
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-11-25 09:04 a.m.
I am granting a 3 day stay on my previous ruling until I can view the motion.

@singhski @DauuX
acerxtroacerxtro
I am granting a 3 day stay on my previous ruling until I can view the motion. @singhski @DauuX
singhski
singhski 2024-11-25 09:05 a.m.
Thank you
singhski
singhski 2024-11-27 11:28 a.m.
@acerxtro Tomorrow?
singhski
singhski 2024-11-28 11:15 a.m.
@acerxtro
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-11-28 11:26 a.m.
Definitely not Thanksgiving
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-11-28 11:26 a.m.
The courts are closed and the court PCs are taped off
acerxtroacerxtro
Definitely not Thanksgiving
singhski
singhski 2024-11-28 11:34 a.m.
You must have considered that
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-11-29 04:59 p.m.
Yeah I have read the motion @singhski
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-11-29 05:00 p.m.
I believe the pot analogy fits very well here
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-11-29 05:00 p.m.
I maintain that a CCPI does exist and, as such, due process should have been given.
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-11-29 05:01 p.m.
Motion denied, relief is to be completed
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-11-29 05:01 p.m.
the court will not hear a motion to reconsider the motion to reconsider the verdict
acerxtroacerxtro
Yeah I have read the motion @singhski
singhski
singhski 2024-11-29 05:04 p.m.
So he's not at-will?
singhski
singhski 2024-11-29 05:07 p.m.
@acerxtro It would be insensitive for you not to put this on paper. The arguments are different.
acerxtroacerxtro
I believe the pot analogy fits very well here
DauuX
DauuX 2024-11-29 08:00 p.m.
THANK GOODNESS
DauuX
DauuX 2024-11-29 08:00 p.m.
for a SOUND ruling of this COURT
DauuX
DauuX 2024-11-29 08:00 p.m.
(I have to battle the certiorari petition now.)
Nicklaus
Nicklaus 2024-11-29 10:16 p.m.
Singhski is actually biologically driven to HATE ALL OF YOU

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief_perseverance
Belief perseverance (also known as conceptual conservatism) is maintaining a belief despite new information that firmly contradicts it.
Since rationality involves conceptual flexibility, belief perseverance is consistent with the view that human beings act at times in an irrational manner. Philosopher F.C.S. Schiller holds that belief persevera...
Nicklaus
Nicklaus 2024-11-29 10:17 p.m.
He will win :😈::😈:
NicklausNicklaus
Singhski is actually biologically driven to HATE ALL OF YOU https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief_perseverance
DauuX
DauuX 2024-11-30 08:17 a.m.
:😭:
DauuX
DauuX 2024-11-30 08:18 a.m.
sounds accurate
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-11-30 11:13 a.m.
if singhski is a captain that goes down with his ship, it just so happens that his ship is the titanic
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-04 01:15 a.m.
Hello @zrihem it has been like 16 days
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-04 01:15 a.m.
I need a reason for the delay within 24 hours
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-04 01:15 a.m.
or jail
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-04 01:16 a.m.
the court is willing to construct payment plans for the financially needy
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-04 01:16 a.m.
reminder of ordered relief
1. Declaratory judgment that the defendants deprived the plaintiff of their right to due process; 2. Declaratory judgment that defendant zrihem's action of blacklisting the plaintiff was done in retaliation, which transgressed the plaintiff's rights; 3. A permanent injunction for the defendants to remove the records of the plaintiff being discharged and blacklisted; 4. A permanent injunction enjoining the defendants from retaliating or discriminating on the plaintiff based on the existence and contents of this case; 5. A letter of apology written and signed by defendant zrihem, of no less than 150 words, published in the Mayflower National Guard’s public announcements channel, wherein Defendant zrihem will take blame and apologise for his defamatory and unlawful conduct, which shall not be generated by artificial intelligence; which shall be a genuine expression of apology. This letter shall not be deleted, removed, or otherwise modified after it has been posted; 6. $75,000 in punitive damages from defendant zrihem, to be paid to the plaintiff; 7. Attorney's fees and costs, as proposed to the court AND ACCEPTED by it;
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-04 04:02 a.m.
The court shall enter this statement into the record
acerxtroacerxtro
I need a reason for the delay within 24 hours
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-04 04:06 a.m.
now 16 hours @zrihem
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-04 04:08 a.m.
a statement is also required as to why you should not be held in contempt of court for that TERRIBLE statement made in this humble court server
zrihem
zrihem 2024-12-04 05:16 a.m.
:🤓: :☝️:
zrihem
zrihem 2024-12-04 05:16 a.m.
Idk why you’re a judge you never get on Clark :😂::😂:
zrihem
zrihem 2024-12-04 05:17 a.m.
Haven’t seen you on the Clark for ages
zrihem
zrihem 2024-12-04 05:17 a.m.
:😭::😂: @@here
zrihem
zrihem 2024-12-04 05:19 a.m.
If you want to take my rights away U can come and do it yourself..
zrihem
zrihem 2024-12-04 05:20 a.m.
All I’m gonna say is I will not give up easily…
zrihem
zrihem 2024-12-04 05:21 a.m.
Also not sure if you’re in the loop but Tdark99 left Clark completely thus this making it your personal problem.. not tdark’S
zrihem
zrihem 2024-12-04 05:33 a.m.
try and take me down for something I didn’t do. Proceed with such action and I will have no other choice but to take the whole state down with me on this sinking ship
zrihem
zrihem 2024-12-04 05:34 a.m.
My wealth is unmeasured and my capabilities are through the roof..
zrihem
zrihem 2024-12-04 05:35 a.m.
I hold much of Clark county’s investment and I have my own Private military company along side other associates of mine….
zrihem
zrihem 2024-12-04 05:36 a.m.
And I possess all synagogues if that’s relevant
DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-04 08:36 a.m.
Shut the fuck up
DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-04 08:37 a.m.
:😭:
acerxtroacerxtro
reminder of ordered relief ``` 1. Declaratory judgment that the defendants deprived the plaintiff of their right to due process; 2. Declaratory judgment that defendant zrihem's act...
singhski
singhski 2024-12-04 11:52 a.m.
Remove no 5, it's compelled speech.
singhskisinghski
Remove no 5, it's compelled speech.
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:07 p.m.
why was this not argued against before
DauuXDauuX
Shut the fuck up
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:07 p.m.
Remain respectful, counselor
acerxtroacerxtro
why was this not argued against before
singhski
singhski 2024-12-04 12:07 p.m.
Why does it even exist?
singhski
singhski 2024-12-04 12:07 p.m.
better question
zrihemzrihem
Also not sure if you’re in the loop but Tdark99 left Clark completely thus this making it your personal problem.. not tdark’S
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:08 p.m.
confirm @singhski @DauuX
acerxtroacerxtro
Remain respectful, counselor
DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:08 p.m.
Of course, apologies :🙂:
acerxtroacerxtro
confirm @singhski @DauuX
singhski
singhski 2024-12-04 12:08 p.m.
yeah I don't know anything about Tdark's private business
singhski
singhski 2024-12-04 12:08 p.m.
up to Dauu to confirm
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:09 p.m.
I am pretty sure Mr Tdark is in the state, seeing that he just attended a criminal trial a week ago
singhski
singhski 2024-12-04 12:09 p.m.
or deny
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:09 p.m.
state-of-mayflower-v-tdark99
acerxtroacerxtro
confirm @singhski @DauuX
DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:09 p.m.
I certainly know nothing of it
singhskisinghski
Why does it even exist?
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:09 p.m.
response @DauuX
acerxtroacerxtro
response @DauuX
DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:10 p.m.
It was originally meant to be part of the relief for libel
DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:10 p.m.
As we did originally allege that
singhski
singhski 2024-12-04 12:10 p.m.
honestly this is more on you acerxtro
DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:10 p.m.
It'd be a retraction of sorts
DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:11 p.m.
And clearing up the department record
singhskisinghski
honestly this is more on you acerxtro
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:11 p.m.
you have had how many days to contest
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:12 p.m.
any objection to removing it @DauuX
acerxtroacerxtro
any objection to removing it @DauuX
DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:12 p.m.
Not really
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:13 p.m.
Ok cool Mr Zrihem no longer needs to do the apology letter
DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:13 p.m.
But I insist on contempt for the rest
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:13 p.m.
I was just getting there
acerxtroacerxtro
you have had how many days to contest
singhski
singhski 2024-12-04 12:13 p.m.
pretty much any judge worth his salt would abstain from ordering compelled speech
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:13 p.m.
it has been ordered time and time after before
singhski
singhski 2024-12-04 12:14 p.m.
when
acerxtroacerxtro
The court shall enter this statement into the record
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:14 p.m.
Mr Zrihem will be found in direct criminal contempt for his disrespectful conduct towards the court as shown here
DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:14 p.m.
You were being neglectful
DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:14 p.m.
Also OG had a lot of that
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:14 p.m.
yep
singhski
singhski 2024-12-04 12:14 p.m.
OG :😭:
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:14 p.m.
Mr Zrihem will also be held in civil contempt for his failure to comply with any of the ordered relief
singhskisinghski
OG :😭:
DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:15 p.m.
OG had some of the best lawyers and judges
DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:15 p.m.
A lot of bad ones too obviously(edited)
zrihemzrihem
Also not sure if you’re in the loop but Tdark99 left Clark completely thus this making it your personal problem.. not tdark’S
singhski
singhski 2024-12-04 12:15 p.m.
Yeah I don't know what was going on here...
DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:15 p.m.
But overall it was better than this..
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:15 p.m.
oh absolutely
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:15 p.m.
especially the antradz bot..
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:16 p.m.
I will determine the amounts for Mr Zrihem’s contempt later and how many counts I will charge him with
DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:16 p.m.
Twenty-three.
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:16 p.m.
I will be fining him instead of sending him to jail
singhski
singhski 2024-12-04 12:16 p.m.
Can we not converse here and clutter the cluttered record further
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:16 p.m.
We will converse in my courtroom at my will(edited)
DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:16 p.m.
:🐺:
singhski
singhski 2024-12-04 12:16 p.m.
if you wish
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:17 p.m.
you are appealing right @singhski
singhski
singhski 2024-12-04 12:17 p.m.
ya
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:17 p.m.
has a petition for a stay of the relief been attempted yet
singhski
singhski 2024-12-04 12:18 p.m.
no but i'll do that
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:18 p.m.
ok
singhski
singhski 2024-12-04 12:18 p.m.
i don't understand the reasoning behind your second ruling btw
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:18 p.m.
which
DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:18 p.m.
We're waiting on the
singhski
singhski 2024-12-04 12:18 p.m.
if you could clarify
singhski
singhski 2024-12-04 12:18 p.m.
that
DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:18 p.m.
Cert decision
singhski
singhski 2024-12-04 12:18 p.m.
will help with the appeal
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:19 p.m.
which ruling
singhski
singhski 2024-12-04 12:19 p.m.
on the motion to reconsider
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:19 p.m.
oh
singhski
singhski 2024-12-04 12:19 p.m.
you left me in the dark with that one
singhski
singhski 2024-12-04 12:19 p.m.
i guess you could say the tdark
singhski
singhski 2024-12-04 12:19 p.m.
LOL
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:19 p.m.
:mainskull:
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:19 p.m.
Im pretty sure it just reattempts all of the stuff I already ruled on
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:20 p.m.
and I am confident in the original ruling
acerxtroacerxtro
Im pretty sure it just reattempts all of the stuff I already ruled on
singhski
singhski 2024-12-04 12:20 p.m.
not really the arguments are different
singhski
singhski 2024-12-04 12:20 p.m.
like completely different
DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:20 p.m.
Basically im right ur wrong
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:20 p.m.
is it a slam dunk counselor
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:20 p.m.
I can hear the cauldron brewing
singhski
singhski 2024-12-04 12:20 p.m.
acer you were supposed to read it
singhski
singhski 2024-12-04 12:20 p.m.
i don't think you did
DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:20 p.m.
I did
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:20 p.m.
oh I read it counselor
DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:20 p.m.
And it brought nothing new
singhski
singhski 2024-12-04 12:20 p.m.
how did you end up rebuking the
singhski
singhski 2024-12-04 12:21 p.m.
at-will presumption
DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:21 p.m.
Well its not at will
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:21 p.m.
yeah
DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:21 p.m.
Because the policy says its not
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:21 p.m.
reasonable expectation to stay employed
singhski
singhski 2024-12-04 12:21 p.m.
where
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:21 p.m.
defense policy
DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:21 p.m.
Thats the "more than unilateral expectation"
singhski
singhski 2024-12-04 12:21 p.m.
ya where
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:21 p.m.
discipline policy
singhski
singhski 2024-12-04 12:21 p.m.
dude i wasn't talking about that
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:21 p.m.
there’s like 3
singhskisinghski
ya where
DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:21 p.m.
It says you can be discharged for X, Y and Z
singhski
singhski 2024-12-04 12:22 p.m.
you can have a unilateral expectation whilst being at-will
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:22 p.m.
well
singhskisinghski
you can have a unilateral expectation whilst being at-will
DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:22 p.m.
yeah I said "more than"
DauuXDauuX
It says you can be discharged for X, Y and Z
singhski
singhski 2024-12-04 12:22 p.m.
that's wholly against the premise of Bishop v Woods
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:22 p.m.
if I say that you will not be fired unless you break the defense policy
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:23 p.m.
then I go and fire you for something else
singhski
singhski 2024-12-04 12:23 p.m.
chat be honest did you guys actually read those cases
singhski
singhski 2024-12-04 12:23 p.m.
or did you just read the casetext summary
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:23 p.m.
oh loudermill was completely read
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:23 p.m.
I know the justices’ dogs’ names
singhski
singhski 2024-12-04 12:23 p.m.
loudermill was a good read
singhskisinghski
that's wholly against the premise of Bishop v Woods
DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:24 p.m.
well it really isnt
DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:24 p.m.
girl you said he was terminated at will FOR insubordination
DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:24 p.m.
and he couldve been terminated for insubordination
DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:24 p.m.
sure he could've, but that means it wasnt "at will" but for a reason
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:24 p.m.
@singhski would recommend letting the SC decide rather than a MTR
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:25 p.m.
usually I am able to be swayed to 1 side and rule alongside them
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:25 p.m.
but my toes are just touching the plaintiff’s side
singhski
singhski 2024-12-04 12:25 p.m.
sufficiency of claim of entitlement must be decided in reference to state law
singhski
singhski 2024-12-04 12:25 p.m.
-bishop
singhski
singhski 2024-12-04 12:26 p.m.
absent specific legal protections the presumption is at-will employment
singhskisinghski
sufficiency of claim of entitlement must be decided in reference to state law
DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:26 p.m.
some other cases also said it depends on the customs
DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:26 p.m.
and contracts
DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:27 p.m.
One of the cases you mentioned said policy or custom
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:29 p.m.
@DauuX can you draft up amounts for Mr zrihem’s contempt
DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:29 p.m.
Erm
singhski
singhski 2024-12-04 12:30 p.m.
had to get something from my car
DauuXDauuX
some other cases also said it depends on the customs
singhski
singhski 2024-12-04 12:30 p.m.
you mean Roth?
DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:31 p.m.
Wasnt just Roth but maybe
DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:31 p.m.
Ive read a few
singhski
singhski 2024-12-04 12:31 p.m.
I think it was Roth
singhski
singhski 2024-12-04 12:32 p.m.
either way they can't rest on a "mere subjective expectancy"
singhski
singhski 2024-12-04 12:32 p.m.
you'd have to provide evidence that those are the customs
singhski
singhski 2024-12-04 12:33 p.m.
the court didn't provide evidence of a mutual understanding that would elevate his employment beyond at-will status
singhskisinghski
either way they can't rest on a "mere subjective expectancy"
DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:34 p.m.
yeah thats the whole point
DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:34 p.m.
the Defense Policy said he wouldnt be discharged
DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:34 p.m.
so the employer thought that
DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:34 p.m.
We also thought that because we alleged it
DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:34 p.m.
unless you want to tell me the employer was unaware of his policy
singhskisinghski
you'd have to provide evidence that those are the customs
DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:34 p.m.
we did subpoena that if I recall properly, the government hasnt complied :🙂:
singhski
singhski 2024-12-04 12:35 p.m.
Correct me if I'm wrong, the DP doesn't say that he wouldn't be discharged? Doesn't it say that he would be discharged for certain infractions?
singhski
singhski 2024-12-04 12:35 p.m.
Unless it says "you won't be discharged UNLESS"
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-04 12:35 p.m.
already read the MTR but just skimming over:
just because someone breaks the policy doesn’t mean they forfeit their right to due process (if one exists)
singhskisinghski
Correct me if I'm wrong, the DP doesn't say that he wouldn't be discharged? Doesn't it say that he would be discharged for certain infractions?
DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:36 p.m.
Yes
DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:36 p.m.
And as our SC has upheld recently (which is also a standard rule)
singhski
singhski 2024-12-04 12:36 p.m.
To which?
DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:36 p.m.
"expressio unius est exclusio alterius"
DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:37 p.m.
So if you list infractions for which one can be discharged, it means that it is just those infractions
singhskisinghski
sufficiency of claim of entitlement must be decided in reference to state law
DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:38 p.m.
Yes that is true, however, the reliance on state law stems from Roth
DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:39 p.m.
And Roth specifically uses "such as state law" to indicate rules or understandings from "an independent source"
DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:39 p.m.
I'd say the policy here is that
DauuXDauuX
Yes that is true, however, the reliance on state law stems from Roth
DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:39 p.m.
And it is mentioned primarily because the benefits in Bishop were secured by state law
singhski
singhski 2024-12-04 12:40 p.m.
Expressio unius would apply if the policy explicitly excluded other grounds for termination, but without such language, the policy may be read as providing guidance rather than a binding guarantee of continued employment.
singhski
singhski 2024-12-04 12:40 p.m.
oops wifi
singhskisinghski
Expressio unius would apply if the policy explicitly excluded other grounds for termination, but without such language, the policy may be read as providing guidance rather than a b...
DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:40 p.m.
No, expressio unius literally means excluding others by the mere expression of some(edited)
singhski
singhski 2024-12-04 12:40 p.m.
unless the policy establishes a contractual or statutory basis for an entitlement to continued service, the guardsman would still be considered an at-will employee under the law.
DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:41 p.m.
I think it does, so did acer
singhski
singhski 2024-12-04 12:41 p.m.
The question still stands, does the policy establishes a clear contractual entitlement to continued employment or simply outlines potential grounds for disciplinary action?
singhski
singhski 2024-12-04 12:42 p.m.
does it guarantee continued employment, or does it leave open the possibility of termination at the discretion of the Major General in accordance with Principle #4?
DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:42 p.m.
Expressio unius rule means the former
singhski
singhski 2024-12-04 12:42 p.m.
"guardsman may be discharged if deemed unfit for service by the Major General," suggests a degree of discretion which would then suggest at-will employment applies
singhski
singhski 2024-12-04 12:43 p.m.
It implies that termination is contingent on the judgment of the Major General
DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:43 p.m.
But you must be deemed unfit for service
DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:43 p.m.
Just as you must be deemed disobedient, and so on
DauuXDauuX
But you must be deemed unfit for service
singhski
singhski 2024-12-04 12:44 p.m.
Unfit for service is solely discretionary
DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:44 p.m.
singhski
singhski 2024-12-04 12:44 p.m.
there is no quantitative measure of being unfit
DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:44 p.m.
"for any of the following reasons:"
singhski
singhski 2024-12-04 12:44 p.m.
nor is there a qualitative measure
DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:44 p.m.
These are grounds
singhskisinghski
there is no quantitative measure of being unfit
DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:44 p.m.
there literally are
singhski
singhski 2024-12-04 12:44 p.m.
He was terminated for being unfit for service
singhski
singhski 2024-12-04 12:44 p.m.
that is solely discretionary
DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:44 p.m.
If you were deemed unfit because you were black, that'd be dealt with quickly
singhskisinghski
He was terminated for being unfit for service
DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-04 12:44 p.m.
but the question here isnt whether he was or was not unfit, but whether there had to be a reason for that discharge
DauuXDauuX
If you were deemed unfit because you were black, that'd be dealt with quickly
singhski
singhski 2024-12-04 12:45 p.m.
Correct, and that sort of understanding is compliant with the at-will employment doctrine. You can't be at-will'd for something illegal
singhski
singhski 2024-12-04 12:46 p.m.
the mere existence of grounds for discharge does not automatically create a constitutionally protected right to continued employment, especially when the decision to terminate is not tied to a rigid, fixed standard, but instead is left to the discretion of an officer.
singhski
singhski 2024-12-04 12:47 p.m.
while the policy specifies certain conditions under which a guardsman may be discharged, including "unfit for service," the fact that such a determination is made by the Major General leaves the termination open to subjective interpretation. This discretionary language suggests that the guardsman’s employment is still fundamentally at-will, because the decision to terminate remains within the unfettered discretion of the employer (the Major General), rather than being an automatic, contractually guaranteed action based on an objective standard.(edited)
singhski
singhski 2024-12-04 12:48 p.m.
sorry that was a long one
singhski
singhski 2024-12-04 12:49 p.m.
and this is an argument I have made in my petition & the MTR
Nicklaus
Nicklaus 2024-12-04 04:13 p.m.
u guys talk more than my Spanish teacher
zrihem
zrihem 2024-12-04 04:14 p.m.
can U charge me with Hate Crimes
Nicklaus
Nicklaus 2024-12-04 04:15 p.m.
If singhski actually is right I'm gonna chuckle
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-04 11:48 p.m.
@zrihem You have been held in direct criminal contempt for 3 separate actions:
- Intentional disrespectful & discourteous behavior via calling the court a "bitch"
- $4,000
- Intentional mocking of this court & hooliganish behavior
- $3,500
- Intentional threats made to this court & to the state
- $3,500

You have been fined a total of $11,000 over these 3 charges of contempt.
I hope the amount signals that you need to comply with court orders, assuming you've already stated that you are rich and could easily pay any fines issued by this court.
If this conduct is repeated, I will not hesitate to max out the fines.

You have 3 days from the exact date of this message to make progress deemed acceptable by this court on the relief.
(edited)
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-04 11:50 p.m.
Whenever you next join the game, you will have exactly 30 minutes to pay your citations.
I will be gracious and allow a total of 1 hour for you to do this instead.
If an error happens to exist with the code and whenever you join, if your citations are mysteriously overdue, I will expunge any arrest record incurred.
zrihem
zrihem 2024-12-05 12:12 a.m.
So U want cash or debit
acerxtroacerxtro
@zrihem You have been held in direct criminal contempt for 3 separate actions: - Intentional disrespectful & discourteous behavior via calling the court a "bitch" -...(edited)
zrihem
zrihem 2024-12-05 12:15 a.m.
Guess who Made the supreme Court Building
zrihem
zrihem 2024-12-05 12:15 a.m.
You guys owe me everything.
zrihem
zrihem 2024-12-05 12:17 a.m.
I have yet to be payed a somme of 153,999 UC$
zrihem
zrihem 2024-12-05 12:17 a.m.
Paying for my workers, materials and other expenses.
zrihem
zrihem 2024-12-05 12:18 a.m.
State has not granted me such
zrihem
zrihem 2024-12-05 12:18 a.m.
alsoo I cannot pay the fine it wont let me lol
zrihemzrihem
alsoo I cannot pay the fine it wont let me lol
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-05 12:19 a.m.
oh that feature must be broken then
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-05 12:20 a.m.
Record yourself dropping $11,000 off the map @zrihem
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-05 12:20 a.m.
if the game tries to give you a warrant ill remove it
zrihem
zrihem 2024-12-05 12:23 a.m.
before
zrihem
zrihem 2024-12-05 12:23 a.m.
OK im just gonna donate it to you im not waiting for it to despawn after i drop
zrihem
zrihem 2024-12-05 12:24 a.m.
nvm i cannot give it to you.
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-05 12:25 a.m.
the court will consider the fine paid
zrihem
zrihem 2024-12-05 01:42 a.m.
got rid of it
acerxtroacerxtro
the court will consider the fine paid
zrihem
zrihem 2024-12-05 01:43 a.m.
Also im fine with giving out money but Im not appologizing at all to a dead person
zrihem
zrihem 2024-12-05 01:43 a.m.
dead man dont talk (tdark99)
zrihemzrihem
Also im fine with giving out money but Im not appologizing at all to a dead person
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-05 01:43 a.m.
we have removed that part where you have to apologize
zrihem
zrihem 2024-12-05 01:43 a.m.
Ok what were the other stuff
zrihem
zrihem 2024-12-05 01:43 a.m.
just the $$$
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-05 01:43 a.m.
1. Declaratory judgment that the defendants deprived the plaintiff of their right to due process; 2. Declaratory judgment that defendant zrihem's action of blacklisting the plaintiff was done in retaliation, which transgressed the plaintiff's rights; 3. A permanent injunction for the defendants to remove the records of the plaintiff being discharged and blacklisted; 4. A permanent injunction enjoining the defendants from retaliating or discriminating on the plaintiff based on the existence and contents of this case; 5. removed 6. $75,000 in punitive damages from defendant zrihem, to be paid to the plaintiff; 7. Attorney's fees and costs, as proposed to the court AND ACCEPTED by it;
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-05 01:43 a.m.
yea
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-05 01:43 a.m.
you left the MNG right
zrihem
zrihem 2024-12-05 01:44 a.m.
When this whole thing was going on I resigned as major general
zrihem
zrihem 2024-12-05 01:44 a.m.
so yeah even if I wanted to blacklist him I COULDNT
zrihem
zrihem 2024-12-05 01:44 a.m.
LOlll.
zrihem
zrihem 2024-12-05 01:44 a.m.
Id like for the tdark murder case to be reopened as retaliation of these damages
zrihem
zrihem 2024-12-05 01:45 a.m.
other than that I will pay the expenses
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-05 01:45 a.m.
ok so 3 & 4 will go to MNG
zrihemzrihem
Id like for the tdark murder case to be reopened as retaliation of these damages
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-05 01:45 a.m.
mr tdark has already been found guilty
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-05 01:45 a.m.
he is awaiting sentencing
zrihem
zrihem 2024-12-05 01:45 a.m.
see thats why I kicked him out... i knew he was guilty
zrihem
zrihem 2024-12-05 01:45 a.m.
we had no procedure written for discharges
zrihem
zrihem 2024-12-05 01:46 a.m.
depleted command
zrihemzrihem
see thats why I kicked him out... i knew he was guilty
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-05 01:46 a.m.
was he discharged for shooting some guy stealing a car
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-05 01:46 a.m.
or for another reason
zrihem
zrihem 2024-12-05 01:47 a.m.
No he shot and killed an MSP officer holding a radar gun
zrihem
zrihem 2024-12-05 01:47 a.m.
in front of fort standish
zrihem
zrihem 2024-12-05 01:47 a.m.
gates
zrihem
zrihem 2024-12-05 01:48 a.m.
msp officer was seen making his way towards the guardsman and proceed to still execute him
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-05 01:48 a.m.
:/
zrihem
zrihem 2024-12-05 01:48 a.m.
no shots were fired except his, theres a clip out there but I dont possess it
zrihem
zrihem 2024-12-05 01:48 a.m.
not sure if theres forgiveness in the fact that he just thought it was a gun
zrihem
zrihem 2024-12-05 01:48 a.m.
not sure what the legalities of that is
acerxtroacerxtro
``` 1. Declaratory judgment that the defendants deprived the plaintiff of their right to due process; 2. Declaratory judgment that defendant zrihem's action of blacklisting the pla...
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-05 02:39 a.m.
@DauuX I will draft up an order to the major gen. tomorrow
DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-05 04:08 a.m.
Ok :👍:
Nicklaus
Nicklaus 2024-12-05 08:01 a.m.
LOLOLOLOLO
Nicklaus
Nicklaus 2024-12-05 08:01 a.m.
@singhski dms
singhski
singhski 2024-12-05 11:10 a.m.
@DauuX could you specify the capacities
singhski
singhski 2024-12-05 11:10 a.m.
for each tort
singhskisinghski
@DauuX could you specify the capacities
DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-05 11:17 a.m.
Whats the issue
DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-05 11:17 a.m.
Because you dont just get to file motion after motion when this case is essentially over
DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-05 11:19 a.m.
Im pretty sure the complaint states them
DauuXDauuX
Im pretty sure the complaint states them
singhski
singhski 2024-12-05 12:00 p.m.
It doesn’t which is why I’m confused
singhskisinghski
It doesn’t which is why I’m confused
DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-05 12:12 p.m.
R u sure girl
DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-05 12:12 p.m.
Weren't you the one accusing us of not reading things fully
singhski
singhski 2024-12-05 12:15 p.m.
oh you did
Nicklaus
Nicklaus 2024-12-05 04:29 p.m.
its not in the party section
Nicklaus
Nicklaus 2024-12-05 04:29 p.m.
dauux is a freak.
DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-05 06:32 p.m.
Certified :😈:
shah
shah 2024-12-06 09:28 a.m.
can this be archived @acerxtro ?
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-06 12:02 p.m.
not yet @shah
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-06 12:02 p.m.
am waiting for relief still
acerxtroacerxtro
``` 1. Declaratory judgment that the defendants deprived the plaintiff of their right to due process; 2. Declaratory judgment that defendant zrihem's action of blacklisting the pla...
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-09 07:53 p.m.
@DauuX draft order to maj gen. for #3 and #4
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-09 07:53 p.m.
also I am waiving your attorney fees as relief because no proposal was given within a reasonable amount of time
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-14 12:06 a.m.
@DauuX
DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-14 12:14 a.m.
Oh I'm sorry
DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-14 12:14 a.m.
Had mocks this week and completely forgot
DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-14 12:14 a.m.
I'll get to it today
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-16 01:21 a.m.
@DauuX
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-16 01:22 a.m.
you have 2 days or no relief
DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-16 01:50 p.m.
Yes sorry
DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-16 01:50 p.m.
Any format or will a text message suffice? @acerxtro
DauuXDauuX
Any format or will a text message suffice? @acerxtro
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-16 03:34 p.m.
block format here
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-16 03:34 p.m.
and I’ll format it
DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-16 04:13 p.m.
You are hereby ORDERED and COMMANDED to: 1. Locate any public, external and internal employment records belonging to the Mayflower National Guard containing information regarding Plaintiff’s discharge of the twenty-eighth of August, 2024, and subsequent blacklist on or about the fourth of September, 2024; 2. Remove, erase, or, if impossible, otherwise modify these records to clearly and unambiguously state that the action was unlawful and is therefore void; 3. Suspend and terminate any pending, ongoing and/or future investigation(s) into the conduct which led to Plaintiff’s discharge on the twenty-eighth of August, 2024; 4. Ensure that no one person or unit retaliates, discriminates against or treats Plaintiff unfairly for bringing this civil case before ac court of law; 5. Take any action necessary in the future to redress any damage suffered by Plaintiff as a result of actions described above.
DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-16 04:13 p.m.
@acerxtro
DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-16 04:13 p.m.
Let me know if the wording anywhere is sloppy and needs changing
DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-16 04:13 p.m.
I'm sure the unusual way of putting the dates seems lovely
DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-16 04:14 p.m.
before a court of law*
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-23 03:06 a.m.
Ok
DauuXDauuX
``` You are hereby ORDERED and COMMANDED to: 1. Locate any public, external and internal employment records belonging to the Mayflower National Guard containing information regardi...
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-23 03:16 a.m.
@DauuX @singhski @Nicklaus
Nicklaus
Nicklaus 2024-12-23 10:43 a.m.
jurisdiction has been divested to scom
NicklausNicklaus
jurisdiction has been divested to scom
DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-23 12:49 p.m.
fake news
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-23 12:54 p.m.
actually true news
DauuXDauuX
``` You are hereby ORDERED and COMMANDED to: 1. Locate any public, external and internal employment records belonging to the Mayflower National Guard containing information regardi...
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-23 12:55 p.m.
Court order shall be put on hold
acerxtroacerxtro
Court order shall be put on hold
DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-23 12:56 p.m.
as far as I know there isnt a stay
DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-23 12:56 p.m.
and I complied a week ago.
DauuX
DauuX 2024-12-23 12:56 p.m.
please force this corrupt government to respect the law
DauuXDauuX
as far as I know there isnt a stay
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-23 12:57 p.m.
yeah I know
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-23 12:57 p.m.
but its likely inevitable(edited)
Nicklaus
Nicklaus 2024-12-23 01:25 p.m.
u probably still can but
Nicklaus
Nicklaus 2024-12-23 01:25 p.m.
it’s like probably bad
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-23 07:25 p.m.
the sc will just issue a stay right after
acerxtro
acerxtro 2024-12-23 07:25 p.m.
I will let them review in peace
acerxtroacerxtro used
/transcript
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-01-17 12:10 a.m.
Creating transcript..
clerkFlow
clerkFlow Bot2025-01-17 12:10 a.m.
Exported 1908 messages